The future of QuickTime, poverty or prosperity

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
It doesn't look like QuickTime is going anywhere. The core idea is great: a universal way to encode, playback and decode multimedia. But it isn't available for Linux, which is becoming very important to computing, a real 3rd alternative to computer users (after Windows and Macintosh). Microsoft and Real have been aggressive promoting their formats on the internet, and have kept up their players while QuickTime Player, the way ordinary computer users watch QuickTime movies, has stagnated.



QuickTime doesn't look like running on Linux any time soon either. Apple looked for a bit like killing the .mov format, but that doesn't look like going away. Another great idea: a universal container for any format of video, audio, text and pictures. But what's the use if QuickTime isn't popular? For the last few years on the 'net .mov has been the lesser format, after WMP and Real.



DivX has come from nowhere and made a real splash in compression. It is high quality, low file size compression for the power user, not just the film professional. This is the intention of DivX projects around the world, and this intention has made it so popular. What else are you going to use on computers? QuickTime? Hardly, when QuickTime has stagnated to the point where it is no longer a universal system.



So QuickTime has been allowed to die slowly, the lack of use has turned into a lack of third-party support, and the lack of third party support has seen the loss of the whole point of the system. To make life easier for developers and users of multimedia applications.



Clearly, something has to be done.



I can only suggest a new open-source QuickTime be developed, this time designed for cross platform codecs and applications. Mac OS X, Windows and Linux would all have to be supported. Apple would have to market it aggressively, and make .mov or a new container standard an open standard.



It is very important that this new QuickTime is very popular, because only then will many applications be written for it, and developers and users will experience the benefits. It would need to be popular enough and usable enough initially for open source contributers to write codecs and applications for it, port and improve this new QuickTime. I do not see Apple alone having the ability to write software on such a grand scale and also keep it relevent.



To be popular, it would need to have codecs and applications. To have codecs and applications, it needs to be popular. This is the reason that Apple must do this, because they have the manpower to develop the codecs and they have the iApps which can use this. Imagine an iTunes and iMovie that fully utilized the importing and exporting QuickTime offers. Developers would write codecs (for example the Real and WMP codecs, as seen in MPlayer) because they would have such popular applications supporting them.



Apple still needs to make QuickTime much more popular on Windows and Linux however for developers to write applications based on QuickTime, and for Mac users to experience the benefits in 3rd party applications. A quality open source QuickTime for Linux, marketed aggressively, would certainly see widespread adoption by this (generally) tech-savvy user base and ideally the inclusion in distrobutions like RedHat.



Other systems that you could use instead of QuickTime could be developed, if a new open-source QuickTime was developed. This would create a minimum level of competitiveness with the alternative of each application maintaining it's own codecs and associated code, if Apple ever fell behind a bit futher down the track.



iTunes for Windows will result in a huge new adoption of QuickTime by Windows users, but it still won't result in a benefit unless QuickTime has the latest codecs available, is easy to develop with and most importantly marketed aggressively to developers. They will see the benefit is obvious if half their coding work is done for them by Apple.



Once more, the only way I can suggest that will accomplish the benefits to developers and users is a new open-source QuickTime, marketed aggressively to both developers and users, a bigger development effort by Apple and extensive use in Apple's Pro Apps and iApps.



Barto
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    I say sod Windows and Linux versions of Quicktime as is.



    Just make a kick ass Mac OS X optimized version of the producer side of things that can create standards based (mp3, mp4, aac, Ogg Vorbis/Theoria/Tarkin, Flac, Speex, PNG, MNG, JNG, JPEG/2000, SWF, SVG, Java-based panorama viewers etc.) output better than anything else on the planet and is a breeze to implement in even the most basic apps. Nothing about it should be too platform dependant so it should be capable of running on Windows and Linux even if the functionality isn't made available for tactical reasons.



    Next, use this technology to implement a kick ass player for all these formats, probably given away free, for Mac and Windows, to aid mp4 adoption.



    A separate Mac only app for cutting, splicing, exporting etc. would be good too. You know, for prosumers.



    Then leverage open standards and source wherever possible e.g. WMA 9 has a lossless codec apparently, meanwhile Flac is apparently able to be sped up significantly by vectorization and Quicktime has nothing comparible.



    The player-producer-library-codecs do not need to be welded together in the way Quicktime is currently built/marketed.



    I thought I read it started life as a port of most of the Mac OS to Windows to support a couple of x-platform apps. Ditch it and start from scratch.



    One last thing: ditch the nag screen. That is sooo last century.
  • Reply 2 of 25
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    And why doesn't Apple pull a million bucks out of my ass too?



    What's the point of a kick-ass system if it isn't used in 3rd party applications. It has to be available for Windows and Linux, otherwise you won't get the benefits. And if it does stagnate, as it will without that level of support, it will no longer be a kick ass system and you will be left with the dismal situation we have today. I don't want Copland, I want Mac OS X!



    Shipping QuickTime as a player does simplify distrobution. I think it's a very good idea what Apple is doing now. However, you want QuickTime and QuickTime pro to be seperate apps. That's certainly a vaild point, and you see the benefits in dedicated editing apps like VirtualDub.



    QuickTime was developed for windows to promote the QuickTime system. Apple tried and they failed, like their other all-encompassing Apple proprietory effort, Copland. Apple didn't want QuickTime to be used to run Mac OS Toolbox applications on Windows, but inevitably it was. I bet that iTunes for Windows will be a Toolbox application running on QuickTime. Bleh.



    Barto
  • Reply 3 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    It has to be available for Windows and Linux, otherwise you won't get the benefits.



    That's true with the current strategy, where you get people to use your proprietary formats on your proprietary OS by giving the cross-platform code away.



    But there are already people giving well maintained native code away for a variety of open formats, with a choice of player and producer apps for each format/use so the whole concept of Quicktime as a format-cum-library-cum-media player-cum-production environment is outmoded and is holding back multimedia development under OS X for a very dubious benefit.
  • Reply 4 of 25
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    OK, let's go back to the beginning.



    What is QuickTime? It is this. A way for any application to decode, play and encode multimedia.



    The benefit of this is better multimedia applications, because this single collection of code decodes, plays and encodes multimedia for that application. So the developer can spend his/her time on the features that differentiate his/her application. Then end user now benefits from better applications.



    However, these applications have to use QuickTime. Do you see much non-Apple applications use QuickTime? No. This is bad, because it means that the user does not get better multimedia applications. Do you even see iTunes or iMovie fully use QuickTime? No.



    So, how does QuickTime get used by applications again? I can only suggest a new open-source QuickTime for Mac OS X, Windows and Linux, marketed aggressively to both developers and users, a bigger development effort by Apple and extensive use in Apple's Pro Apps and iApps.



    I short, I don't give a sh!t here about all the different applications like VLC and MPlayer. That's the problem, the fact that you need to use all these different applications, and other programs on the system don't benefit from the coding done on these applications. Eventually it comes down to this: The user is not getting the quailty applications they could be.



    One thing I forgot to mention before: other systems that you could use instead of QuickTime could be developed, if a new open-source QuickTime was developed. This would furthur boost the popularity of the new QuickTime.



    I still like your idea of a seperate editing/compression app (like an Apple VirtualDub) though.



    Barto
  • Reply 5 of 25
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Please separate QuickTime Player from QuickTime.



    QuickTime is involved in a very large part of the content creation in the world - even when the content is streamed in Real or WMV.
  • Reply 6 of 25
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    QuickTime Player is just one of the applications that uses QuickTime. Most people on these boards understand that. If you are reading this post, then I have been murdered. Actually, I haven't, but unless I say "QuickTime Player", I mean the core QuickTime, not the player application.



    This is the point I've been making. QuickTime, this great idea, is fading away in much of the computing world. What is out there that uses QuickTime from my perspective, and the perspective of 99% of the computing world (outside $$$ pro content creation, or digital camera firmware)? QuickTime Player - one of the worst media players in the market. iTunes and iMovie, which don't even utilize QuickTime fully. Can I save audio as any format I have a QuickTime encoder for in iTunes? No. Can I import video in any format I have a QuickTime decoder for in iMovie? No. Do other third party editing and compression programs exist like Virtual Dub? No.



    Surely this is a sorry state of affairs. In the end, it all comes back to the end user. They could be benefiting much more but they are not. I don't see the point in retelling what I wrote in my first post, for the people who just skimmed it, about why most end users arn't benefiting, how they could be and what I suggest would see more end users benefit like they could be.



    Barto
  • Reply 7 of 25
    There needs to be more seperation than that.



    You have Quicktime the libraries that Apple and others can build apps with (including Java bindings).



    There are the proprietary Quicktime formats .mov and QTVR etc.



    There is the Quicktime Player.



    There is the Quicktime Browser Plugin.



    There is Quicktime Pro for access to some royalty based codecs.



    And most of these are available on two platforms (hopefully with a great deal of shared code.



    And these can interact in different ways e.g. you can use Quicktime Pro or Quicktime enabled 3rd party apps to produce Quicktime proprietary formats and stream it with Quicktime Streaming Server to a Quicktime browser plugin or you can replace any or every step with alternative software.



    It is quite confusing as it is sold (metaphorically) as a unit but really each element has its own reasons and uses.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT AN APPLICATION THAT USES QUICKTIME IS.



    Example : QuickTime Player (or Player Pro - just ordinary Player with the stupid restrictions removed)



    As far as the browser plug-in goes, if QuickTime was popular then browsers would just use QuickTime to render QuickTime content as part of the application, not through a plug-in. QuickTime would always remain compatible, but the codecs would expand. Unlike Flash, where you need plug-ins for a single format which changes. This again demonstrates why the world could be so much better for end-users if QuickTime was more widely used, and more popular. Stuff having all these plug-ins for multimedia when browsing the web, just have QuickTime installed! A popular open-source, supported QuickTime would be sure to have bountiful codecs.



    The container format has really seperated from the QuickTime libraries, with Apple even briefly supporting the MP4 container (obviously only useful for MPEG4 content). It would be great to have a good and popular universal multimedia container, but let's have a good, and popular (in user base and application base), QuickTime (the QuickTime that is currently libraries applications can use) first.



    QuickTime Streaming Server raises another point. With the advent of home networking (and resultant multimedia streaming), would the new QuickTime (the QuickTime applications can use to decode/play/encode/maybe stream multimedia) include the ability to stream multimedia (to other computers)?



    Barto
  • Reply 9 of 25
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,310member
    My simplified overall view.



    Quicktime Player- I would create a BSD/Linux version. Make it more skinnable and integrate it into webpage frameworks a bit better.



    Quicktime- Cannot be opensourced because it is merely a container for licensed/unlicensed codecs. What needs to be done is making it more reentrant and threadsafe. Developers need better documentation to answer tough questions(do I call Quicktime for audio or Core Audio etc).



    Better plugin support. Add OpenGL
  • Reply 10 of 25
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Barto, while I agree that Quicktime has floundered in recent years, I wouldn't go so far as to link it to the whole open-source/linux agenda.



    Open source and linux can be brought into any discussion of commercial software development. Quicktime development is a very complicated issue and it seems that discussion of open source / linux will steer us away from issues more critical to its long-term success. Similarly, the death penalty and abortion aren?t good analogies when trying to illustrate points on other topics. They quickly overshadow the original discussion.



    The problem is that Apple got into the multimedia game early and quicktime still has hundreds of thousands of lines of legacy code. Just to make the windows port, it was necessary to bring over much of the Mac OS code base. It was a truly herculean effort. Now they?re at an interesting point in this game of leapfrog. They can either scrap much of the quicktime code and start from scratch, or they can continue to patch things together for short-term solutions. Apple recently faced a similar crossroads with their OS development and we have OS X to show for it.



    Considering that Apple has always been media focused, I suspect that they are well aware of the QuickTime?s stagnation in the arena of consumer playback. Yet, coding entire cross-platform multimedia architectures from scratch is no small task. It would probably be most economical to code in a platform agnostic manner but to focus on OS X support almost exclusively until the architecture and components have matured.



    It is not necessary to make the architecture open source in order to make it modular and easily integrated into third party applications. Nor is it necessary to make the architecture open source in order for it to support the development of third party plugins. I?m a fan of open source but it isn?t the best model for developing entire systems from scratch. For this, you need a handful of highly paid veterans of systems design and many developer-years from a tightly knit bunch of code monkeys working in the same building. Instead, I would urge open formats, specifications, and well-documented APIs.



    WWDC attendees have been treated to hints of a major quicktime overhaul. The next release will supposedly be completely reentrant among other things. To me this means that they are steadily making progress, eliminating OS9 era code and replacing it with more modern components. These likely exhibit all the benefits of a modern object-oriented code base and should prove easier to maintain and extend especially when going cross platform.



    Can someone dig up details on reentrant quicktime? I forgot where I found this info?
  • Reply 11 of 25
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Barto

    It doesn't look like QuickTime is going anywhere. The core idea is great: a universal way to encode, playback and decode multimedia. But it isn't available for Linux, which is becoming very important to computing, a real 3rd alternative to computer users (after Windows and Macintosh). Microsoft and Real have been aggressive promoting their formats on the internet, and have kept up their players while QuickTime Player, the way ordinary computer users watch QuickTime movies, has stagnated.



    Microsoft has enough cash to persuade content providers to use their format. Real's entire business revolves around internet media. It's a no-brainer that Apple QuickTime is less popular on the other side. Nothing Apple can do other than providing a superior product for both content providers and end-users will change that.



    Quote:

    QuickTime doesn't look like running on Linux any time soon either. Apple looked for a bit like killing the .mov format, but that doesn't look like going away. Another great idea: a universal container for any format of video, audio, text and pictures. But what's the use if QuickTime isn't popular? For the last few years on the 'net .mov has been the lesser format, after WMP and Real.



    Huh?



    You can view/hear most any QuickTime media in Mplayer, and those you can't can be viewed with the Codeweavers Crossover plugin. Isn't it a little contradictory to think a standard format should rule, but only as long as one particular entity thrives off it? .mov is not the lesser format in the least. It's the most powerful of the bunch as far as editability, packagability, extensibility goes. Still, Apple's pushing .mp4 for a reason. It's controlled by a committee, and not a single MS, Apple or Real.



    Quote:

    DivX has come from nowhere and made a real splash in compression. It is high quality, low file size compression for the power user, not just the film professional. This is the intention of DivX projects around the world, and this intention has made it so popular. What else are you going to use on computers? QuickTime? Hardly, when QuickTime has stagnated to the point where it is no longer a universal system.



    Not a whole lot of major content providers use conventional DivX, XviD, Ogg Theora, etc. There's a reason for that.



    Quote:

    So QuickTime has been allowed to die slowly, the lack of use has turned into a lack of third-party support, and the lack of third party support has seen the loss of the whole point of the system. To make life easier for developers and users of multimedia applications.



    QuickTime's not really dying. Kodak uses it in digital cameras, Sony and HItachi use MPEG-4 in their new camcorders. I don't think I've ever streamed a DivC .avi. The MPEG-4 file format is remarkably close .mov format. So even if QuickTime becomes nothing but a trademark, the legacy lives on.



    Quote:

    Clearly, something has to be done.



    I can only suggest a new open-source QuickTime be developed, this time designed for cross platform codecs and applications. Mac OS X, Windows and Linux would all have to be supported. Apple would have to market it aggressively, and make .mov or a new container standard an open standard.



    Open-Source? The closedness of the Real and MS formats hasn't hampered their quest for domination, so why would opening up the source to QuickTime fix anything? Open-source isn't snake oil...it doesn't cure everything.



    Quote:

    It is very important that this new QuickTime is very popular, because only then will many applications be written for it, and developers and users will experience the benefits. It would need to be popular enough and usable enough initially for open source contributers to write codecs and applications for it, port and improve this new QuickTime. I do not see Apple alone having the ability to write software on such a grand scale and also keep it relevent.



    I'd rather see more people adopt the same already open standards Apple is already promoting. RTSP, MPEG-4, etc.



    Quote:

    To be popular, it would need to have codecs and applications. To have codecs and applications, it needs to be popular. This is the reason that Apple must do this, because they have the manpower to develop the codecs and they have the iApps which can use this. Imagine an iTunes and iMovie that fully utilized the importing and exporting QuickTime offers. Developers would write codecs (for example the Real and WMP codecs, as seen in MPlayer) because they would have such popular applications supporting them.



    iTunes and iMovie already fully utilize QuickTime encoding...what the heck?! You can encode your iMovies however you want them, as VP3, 3ivx, DivX, MPEG-4, Sorenson 3, whatever...



    And MPlayer does support Sorenson 3. It might be a compile-time option.



    Quote:

    Apple still needs to make QuickTime much more popular on Windows and Linux however for developers to write applications based on QuickTime, and for Mac users to experience the benefits in 3rd party applications. A quality open source QuickTime for Linux, marketed aggressively, would certainly see widespread adoption by this (generally) tech-savvy user base and ideally the inclusion in distrobutions like RedHat.



    Yeah, open-source really saved Netscape. Open source put StarOffice over the top! The best way to get more people to use QuickTime is to get more people to use Macs, not jump on some stale buzzword bandwagon.



    Quote:

    Other systems that you could use instead of QuickTime could be developed, if a new open-source QuickTime was developed. This would create a minimum level of competitiveness with the alternative of each application maintaining it's own codecs and associated code, if Apple ever fell behind a bit futher down the track.



    Codecs are so ridiculously easy to add to QuickTime via its plug-in architecture. I'm not sure I understand what you're on about. Apple isn't shutting out people who write codecs.
  • Reply 12 of 25
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Microsoft has enough cash to persuade content providers to use their format. Real's entire business revolves around internet media. It's a no-brainer that Apple QuickTime is less popular on the other side. Nothing Apple can do other than providing a superior product for both content providers and end-users will change that.



    It's not that QuickTime is less popular. QuickTime is not popular at all on Windows.



    You can view/hear most any QuickTime media in Mplayer, and those you can't can be viewed with the Codeweavers Crossover plugin. Isn't it a little contradictory to think a standard format should rule, but only as long as one particular entity thrives off it? .mov is not the lesser format in the least. It's the most powerful of the bunch as far as editability, packagability, extensibility goes. Still, Apple's pushing .mp4 for a reason. It's controlled by a committee, and not a single MS, Apple or Real.



    Read the thread, PLEASE! I'm not talking about the .mov format here (much). I'm not talking about QuickTime Player. I'm talking about QuickTime the encoder/player/decoder engine, used by codecs and applications. That is the problem, that it is not popular enough for most users to be getting the benefits outside Apple-brand applications, and even then sometimes not fully.





    Not a whole lot of major content providers use conventional DivX, XviD, Ogg Theora, etc. There's a reason for that.



    Which is why QuickTime is good! Because the same engine can power applications to decode/play/encode DivX, XviD & Ogg Theora files as long as you have the QuickTime codecs! The problem is that too little applications use QuickTime, and that needs to change by making QuickTime better and more popular.



    QuickTime's not really dying. Kodak uses it in digital cameras, Sony and HItachi use MPEG-4 in their new camcorders. I don't think I've ever streamed a DivC .avi. The MPEG-4 file format is remarkably close .mov format. So even if QuickTime becomes nothing but a trademark, the legacy lives on.



    The legacy lives on... great. So if QuickTime dies like the Apple II, I'm supposed to be thankful that the "legacy lives on"? The whole point of this thread is that I do NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN!



    Open-Source? The closedness of the Real and MS formats hasn't hampered their quest for domination, so why would opening up the source to QuickTime fix anything? Open-source isn't snake oil...it doesn't cure everything.



    It doesn't cure everything, but QuickTime needs to be more modern, more cross platform and more popular. Open-source would certainly help there with Apple assistance.



    I'd rather see more people adopt the same already open standards Apple is already promoting. RTSP, MPEG-4, etc.



    That's nice, why don't you start a thread about it? Because it's a big OT here.



    iTunes and iMovie already fully utilize QuickTime encoding...what the heck?! You can encode your iMovies however you want them, as VP3, 3ivx, DivX, MPEG-4, Sorenson 3, whatever...



    But you can't import anything other than DV, and iTunes can't encode audio in whatever you want.



    Yeah, open-source really saved Netscape. Open source put StarOffice over the top! The best way to get more people to use QuickTime is to get more people to use Macs, not jump on some stale buzzword bandwagon.



    Bad examples. Open-source created Mozilla and OpenOffice which have become widely used in their markets in the small marketshare not owned by MS. Most people only have one OS suite, but many people download more than one media player. If QuickTime Player was downloaded more, then more people would have the QuickTime Libraries. Which is what I care about, because of the better experience for end users.



    Apple isn't shutting out people who write codecs. [/QUOTE]



    Not, but why write codecs for such a small application? Do you see lots of codecs for Windows QuickTime? No, and until you do QuickTime will remain irrelevent and Mac users won't get the benefit.



    Barto
  • Reply 13 of 25
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    Barto seems to be asserting the following: QT isn't modern enough, it isn't popular enough and there are too few codecs. All of that maybe true, each to a certain extent. QT needs to be modernized, and we've heard that is taking place within Apple. It's true that QT isn't popular enough, but that doesn't mean its dead. And I think it's a rather exaggerated claim to make that no one knows of QT for Windows. Everyone who downloads movie trailers has used QT. For some reason - I really don't know why - a lot of large sites prefer WMP and Real. That does need to change. Apple should enhance its relations with those firms and find out why they refuse to support QT. I highly doubt going opensource would make a difference in this matter, though. As another poster said, neither Microsoft nor Real do opensource but that hasn't stopped them.
  • Reply 14 of 25
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Real is going out of business. Next year or the year after. They have no business model. WMP well, what can you do it's M$. QT is better though and most people know it, even Windoze lovers. However, why doesn't Apple ackowledge DivX!!! Even with 3ivx it usually will stutter or not play audio or just not play. Why can't QT play it if MPlayer and VLC which are both open source can? Apple should use their code if they can't do it themselves. MPlayer plays anything. VLC does FLAC and DVDs (better but without hardware.) Use that open source Apple!
  • Reply 15 of 25
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,310member
    Quicktime is fine. End of Story. Featurewise many programmers seem to be happy with it. The Documentation is the thing Apple needs to offer. Quicktime is used in apps that aren't evident since it offers so many conversion. Appreciate the sentiments Barto but I think your points aren't very salient as to the future of Quicktime.
  • Reply 16 of 25
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    I'm not the one talking about a narrow subset of QuickTime, Barto. You are.



    Quote:

    Which is why QuickTime is good! Because the same engine can power applications to decode/play/encode DivX, XviD & Ogg Theora files as long as you have the QuickTime codecs! The problem is that too little applications use QuickTime, and that needs to change by making QuickTime better and more popular



    Does WinAMP use the WMP mp3 decoder? Does Real? MusicMatch? Why would they? Why would they want to tie themselves to another company's software? What makes you think developers would want to latch onto a marginally better QuickTime foundation?



    Quote:

    That's nice, why don't you start a thread about it? Because it's a big OT here.



    Are they really? They are the primary technologies in QuickTime media packaging and distribution from now on.



    Quote:

    But you can't import anything other than DV, and iTunes can't encode audio in whatever you want.



    That's iMovie. It's an iApp. It's designed to be used with NTSC/PAL TV, DVD and internet-oriented distribution.



    Quote:

    Bad examples. Open-source created Mozilla and OpenOffice which have become widely used in their markets in the small marketshare not owned by MS. Most people only have one OS suite, but many people download more than one media player. If QuickTime Player was downloaded more, then more people would have the QuickTime Libraries. Which is what I care about, because of the better experience for end users.



    How is it a bad example? They are large, previously closed-source software projects that went open source and have so far made NO gains versus Microsoft. Most people have WMP, Real and nothing else. Many people download more than one web browser.



    Quote:

    Not, but why write codecs for such a small application? Do you see lots of codecs for Windows QuickTime? No, and until you do QuickTime will remain irrelevent and Mac users won't get the benefit.



    How is QuickTime a small application? Of course it's not as popular on Windows. It never will be. Microsoft would never allow it. That doesn't mean QuickTime needs to be open-sourced, redesigned from the ground up or advertised. It just means Microsoft's ethos hasn't changed in a very long time.



    Do you really want to see QuickTime print ads and TV commercials and stuff like that? How else would you promote it? The only way to promote and popularize QuickTime is to entice users to switch with bait like the iTunes Music Store, iPod, etc.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    rara Posts: 623member
    Apple can do two simple things to make people use Quicktime Player more:

    ? Remove the ad for the Pro version

    ? Allow the non Pro version to play full screen
  • Reply 18 of 25
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Good call. There are a few apps that make it full screen. And that ad, it just lacks taste.



    Apple should include 3ivx with QT. And/or integrate MPlayer code in. Most beginners just automatically assume Macs can't watch downloaded (divx) movies.
  • Reply 19 of 25
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Good call. There are a few apps that make it full screen. And that ad, it just lacks taste.



    Apple should include 3ivx with QT. And/or integrate MPlayer code in. Most beginners just automatically assume Macs can't watch downloaded (divx) movies.




    WMP has ads.



    MPlayer is bound by this nasty thing called GPL. Apple can't use MPlayer's code in QuickTime, even as a bundled plug-in/library without also opening up its own source code to GPL. Sucks, eh?
  • Reply 20 of 25
    rara Posts: 623member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    MPlayer is bound by this nasty thing called GPL. Apple can't use MPlayer's code in QuickTime, even as a bundled plug-in/library without also opening up its own source code to GPL. Sucks, eh?



    Would it be possible to take some of the MPlayer code and turn it into .component files to allow Quicktime to work with divx & other formats?
Sign In or Register to comment.