Do you think perhaps, that Apple is in effect "training" Mac users on how to utilize metadata in the OS with searches and smart folders?
My thoughts are if Apple is able to acclimate it's end users in searching and creating folders with rich metadata then the eventual move to a new fs infused with metadata is much easier. It would seem that the transition to a new fs would be quite transparent to the end user once they are comfortable with utilizing metada. The developers would seem to shoulder the brunt here.
Methinks 10.5 builds on Spotlight by ushering in a new fs with metadata to square off against Longhorn. All the squabbling about Index files versus mean nothing to users who are wholly unfamiliar with the concept today. Give'em 2-3 years and that'll be another story.
( Edit: Exactly like I predicted months ago... http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/search_finder.html Smart Folders in the Finder, just like iTune's Smart Playlists. Actually, Smart Collections freakin' everywhere.... Smart Playlists/Albums/Folders/Groups/Mailboxes... all through one simple UI concept. This is simply revolutionary, no other word for it. MS OneNote? Ha. *THIS* is how you gather related data for a project... from any app, in any file format, for any purpose. Welcome to the next big thing. )
To be honest though, I'm not sure that a move to a DBFS is really *needed* at this point - if they provide the user with the *functionality*, *AND* the speed... why make the system less able to play with the exabytes of data already out there? MS has a hell of a problem on their hands with backwards compatibility with the new FS... their solution of course will be "Well, just upgrade *everything*!" Bzzzt.
So you think adobe should have an alternative for the 99%?
THEY DO, it is called Eliments, and as far as I know, it hasn't exactly erroded the Pshop user base.
Nope, because Elements is only a step above iPhoto's editing, IMHO.
I mean the power of Photoshop without the industry workflow bits... Core Image gives us most of that out of the box. Developers need to simply apply a decent UI over the top, and voila. Omnigroup, I'm looking in your direction...
Speaking of which, I expect iPhoto will get a *MASSIVE* upgrade in the image editing dept...
Though I don't understand the CoreGraphics/Video stuff since I'm not a graphics person, it does look very impressive.
H.264 = cool
The 30" display is huge - the 20" looks like so small next to it.
I would doubt apple will not let tiger be a G5 only update. Think of all the money they will lose. It is with all this talk about tiger going to be a 64 bit OS. Will it still operate smoothly on a 32 bit.
I would doubt apple will not let tiger be a G5 only update. Think of all the money they will lose. It is with all this talk about tiger going to be a 64 bit OS. Will it still operate smoothly on a 32 bit.
I have to disagree here. Apple made the comment that they hope Adobe hops on board with the new functions but let's bet honest here. Adobe and MS have been handling vital portions of code themselves. Things like malloc and UI widgets in these apps have bypassed Apple tools. This is likely due to their desire to keep as much code cross platform as possible. Apple is slyling making it easier and easier for a smaller developer to compete with the Adobe's and MS by using Apple tools that do the heavy lifting. Core Image/Video are extensible through plugins and if Audio Unites are any indication of the reception that Image and Video Units will receive then prepare for the smaller developers to ship nifty products.
Apple's strategy is fairly clear. If they can't compete directly with Adobe and MS in areas they will ensure smaller devs have the tools to do so if they wish. Audio is undergoing the same transformation. I can buy plenty of Audio Unit synths and effects that are quite capable and generally programmed by no more than two developers.
Imagine what Core Image/Video is going to do for companies like iView Multimedia and Graphic Converter.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a change. However, I don't see the advantage of the document based app taking over the app based document that we have today. I think that if Adobe got on board and designed Acrobat to take advantage of this, and be extensible through 3rd party apps (which would compete with Adobe apps) it might have a chance, but without that support I don't see it going any further than Open Doc did.
Another problem that I see is the logistics of the UI and how pallets and keyboard commands are handled. Just take Illustrator for example, there are keyboard commands that work only if you do not have text selected, if you do then text takes over, and that is in just one Adobe App, when you move from Illustrator to InDesign and Photoshop you have slightly different shortcuts for each app. Just imagine the cluster F@@ you would have when you have 3-4 developers working independently imagine the disconnect.
And how do they all integrate within the document? Click on the photo and you have the 30 layers and all the "photo" commands that you need? From a production standpoint (where you might have 10 different people working on the same file throughout the course of the production cycle) that could be a nightmare. Add in multimedia, with its layers and timeline; a Database or spreadsheet .... you get my point. I think that it would get too confusing in a real world environment.
Now, what happens when you send that document on, the next person in the "chain" uses a competing photo editor. Is there a "standard" format to access all the layers? What "core" engine is used to access the photo, illustration, or movie if the app that created it is not present?
Next, how is the document stored? Is it a core document with associated files similar to a page layout program or is it a single document with all necessary files embedded for easier file management? If the later then imagine the file sizes of documents. I know in print we regularly have "flattened" files hitting 30+ meg for a page, and 70+ for a spread, the layered files are usually 2-4 and sometimes 10 or more times that. I could easily see a 10 page "scalable" document running 5 gig using this model. If you have separate files then you run the risk of separating the files as they move to the next step in the process, which is why DCS files are not the norm in the publishing industry today. The alternative is you have a "collect" feature similar to what is used in prepress today. This is an extra step which I don't think would be popular with your average user that is used to dragging and dropping the file that they are working on and e-mailing or copying it to disk to distribute.
Again, I think that it is a nice idea, but I'm not sure if it would work in the real world.
...Developers need to simply apply a decent UI over the top, and voila. Omnigroup, I'm looking in your direction...
Realistically, what is the chance of getting 2 or more developers to get their individual UI's to work smoothly together? Adobe can't even keep "core" shortcut keys standard across their Apps and that is within the same company.
Nope, because Elements is only a step above iPhoto's editing, IMHO.
I mean the power of Photoshop without the industry workflow bits... Core Image gives us most of that out of the box. Developers need to simply apply a decent UI over the top, and voila. Omnigroup, I'm looking in your direction...
Speaking of which, I expect iPhoto will get a *MASSIVE* upgrade in the image editing dept...
After watching the keynote, I agree, lest photoshop adopt the new technology FAST they are doomed, hell even if they do, at a 700$ price tag they may still be finished for everyone outside the ranks of uber-pros, with what the apple team (one person according to the presenter) made in a friggen week, photoshop hasn't a snowballs chance in hell.
When that kind of power is in a simple sdk, college kids (like me) will have the power that used to be for only a few eleit software houses.
with that api and 100 codeing hours polishing a propper UI, just think of the possibilities, gee I cant wait to see the next iMovie, and of course iDVD hd at MWSF 2k5, with the new codec, hd==sd-DVD, thats mind-bending!
sure a step up from last years demo of xcode...flower-power
how? what about it makes it run smoother on a 64 bit machine? the fact is, 64 bit means little for most of us.
Right, the only reason Tiger would show its full potential in a 64-bit machine is the fact that those machines, happen to be the most powerful in the Apple line with a large difference (rather gap) from the others. Other than that, only specialized software that exploits the 64-bit nature of the G5 processor would see a massive boost on those machines.
Realistically, what is the chance of getting 2 or more developers to get their individual UI's to work smoothly together? Adobe can't even keep "core" shortcut keys standard across their Apps and that is within the same company.
After reading this and the post previous, I think what we have hear is a falyur to communikate.
Core Image/Video/Audio are NOT OpenDoc-ish plugins... they're more like QuickTime.
QT lets developers say "Okay, at this spot There Shalt Be a QT Movie!" and let QuickTime handle all the codecs, etc.
Core Image will let developers say "Okay, this tool will Let You Filter!", and the base APIs can handle the heavy lifting of figuring out what filters are available, applying them, and showing the realtime results. It's a plug-in technology like browser or Photoshop plug-ins, not like OpenDoc containers.
I think the disconnect may be coming from the description of Image Units - they're just filters, sources, and sinks. Core Image handles the crufty infrastructure for you, you just tell it how you want things wired up and off it runs.
After reading this and the post previous, I think what we have hear is a falyur to communikate.
Core Image/Video/Audio are NOT OpenDoc-ish plugins...
Exactly.
All the hype we had about a possible QT7 unveiling wasn't misplaced. Apple is giving their new, cleaned-up section of the API a different moniker. Instead of putting it under the quicktime umbrella, the new APIs are being pushed as a seperate entities. How big this distinction is under the hood remains to be seen.
Not really, unless Apple releases a consumer oriented computer for ATI and Nvidia to sell processor upgrades to, untill then Apple's upgrade market will continue to be too small for ATI and Nvidia (who doesn't even offer a retail version of any of their cards out side of Apple branded versions) to take seriously.
I think you are hugely understating the size and desirability of the OEM market for ATI and nVIDIA.
Quote:
As to the framework and application interoperability you need to get the developers, like Microsoft and Adobe, to support it. The smaller developers may come out with interesting products but they don't have the market saturation or power to make a real difference in the programs that we use every day.
On the other hand, Adobe was a small developer once...
All the hype we had about a possible QT7 unveiling wasn't misplaced. Apple is giving their new, cleaned-up section of the API a different moniker. Instead of putting it under the quicktime umbrella, the new APIs are being pushed as a seperate entities. How big this distinction is under the hood remains to be seen.
I think it's larger under the hood than the marketing term change... now the real question is... if this *is* QuickTime 7, more or less, what about cross-platform compatibility? Gone?
I think it's larger under the hood than the marketing term change... now the real question is... if this *is* QuickTime 7, more or less, what about cross-platform compatibility? Gone?
I don't understand what you're saying - are you saying that these new Core SDKs are the new quicktime?
Smart Folders in the Finder, just like iTune's Smart Playlists. Actually, Smart Collections freakin' everywhere.... Smart Playlists/Albums/Folders/Groups/Mailboxes... all through one simple UI. This is simply revolutionary, no other word for it. MS OneNote? Ha. *THIS* is how you gather related data for a project... from any app, in any file format, for any purpose. Welcome to the next big thing.
Imagine assembling research data, all in one place, at the stroke of a single key. It's almost surreal. When I think of the time I have wasted in the past searching for stuff...OMG.
My projects will involve massive amounts of historical research, preparatory to writing historically-based books (and quite a bit of non-fiction stuff too - books/articles). Spotlight will increase my organization and productivity a thousandfold ! Time spent gathering data will decline from days and weeks to hours. I am enraptured by this development. Positively 'enormous' smile on face.
I don't understand what you're saying - are you saying that these new Core SDKs are the new quicktime?
They take over much of the functionality of QuickTime, yes. Any QuickTime we see from now on on the Mac will, I suspect, simply be an API over the top of Core* that is suited more for workflow programming instead of techy algorithmic end programming. That's part of what makes QuickTime good, is that it is abstract from the computational guts. Core* is closer to computational, and is missing (I think, having not looked at the APIs yet) the unified time-based architecture of QuickTime. So... QT becomes the unifying high-level API, but Core* become the guts.
Which means that if QT is going to remain cross-platform, either Core* has to be ported, (which isn't trivial, but not impossible), or replacement libraries have to be found on each platform.
Edit: The fact that the Core Image supported video card list is essentially the same as the DirectX9 supported list is interesting when thinking about cross-platform...
The 30" display is huge - the 20" looks like so small next to it.
Yeah, I opted for the 20" over the 23" simply because I found it to be a pain in the ass moving the mouse around. I don't know how anyone can work with the 30".
They take over much of the functionality of QuickTime, yes. Any QuickTime we see from now on on the Mac will, I suspect, simply be an API over the top of Core* that is suited more for workflow programming instead of techy algorithmic end programming. That's part of what makes QuickTime good, is that it is abstract from the computational guts. Core* is closer to computational, and is missing (I think, having not looked at the APIs yet) the unified time-based architecture of QuickTime. So... QT becomes the unifying high-level API, but Core* become the guts.
Which means that if QT is going to remain cross-platform, either Core* has to be ported, (which isn't trivial, but not impossible), or replacement libraries have to be found on each platform.
Edit: The fact that the Core Image supported video card list is essentially the same as the DirectX9 supported list is interesting when thinking about cross-platform...
For QT to be replaced, they would have to release core* for windows, and hell would freeze before that happens, QT is widely used on windows, hell digital cameras almost accross the board use QT APIs, one api for mac and windows.
If qt is rendered dead, this will mean that something would have po replace it for all three of us Windows QT users
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Kickaha
Re Spotlight
Do you think perhaps, that Apple is in effect "training" Mac users on how to utilize metadata in the OS with searches and smart folders?
My thoughts are if Apple is able to acclimate it's end users in searching and creating folders with rich metadata then the eventual move to a new fs infused with metadata is much easier. It would seem that the transition to a new fs would be quite transparent to the end user once they are comfortable with utilizing metada. The developers would seem to shoulder the brunt here.
Methinks 10.5 builds on Spotlight by ushering in a new fs with metadata to square off against Longhorn. All the squabbling about Index files versus mean nothing to users who are wholly unfamiliar with the concept today. Give'em 2-3 years and that'll be another story.
I guarantee that's what happening: http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/searchtechnology.html
Specifically, this pic:
Note: 'Finder / Smart Folder'
( Edit: Exactly like I predicted months ago...
To be honest though, I'm not sure that a move to a DBFS is really *needed* at this point - if they provide the user with the *functionality*, *AND* the speed... why make the system less able to play with the exabytes of data already out there? MS has a hell of a problem on their hands with backwards compatibility with the new FS... their solution of course will be "Well, just upgrade *everything*!" Bzzzt.
Originally posted by quagmire
So you are saying tiger will only work for G5's? How about G4's?
Tiger will work with G4s.
Though I don't understand the CoreGraphics/Video stuff since I'm not a graphics person, it does look very impressive.
H.264 = cool
The 30" display is huge - the 20" looks like so small next to it.
Originally posted by a_greer
So you think adobe should have an alternative for the 99%?
THEY DO, it is called Eliments, and as far as I know, it hasn't exactly erroded the Pshop user base.
Nope, because Elements is only a step above iPhoto's editing, IMHO.
I mean the power of Photoshop without the industry workflow bits... Core Image gives us most of that out of the box. Developers need to simply apply a decent UI over the top, and voila. Omnigroup, I'm looking in your direction...
Speaking of which, I expect iPhoto will get a *MASSIVE* upgrade in the image editing dept...
Originally posted by MCQ
Tiger will work with G4s.
Though I don't understand the CoreGraphics/Video stuff since I'm not a graphics person, it does look very impressive.
H.264 = cool
The 30" display is huge - the 20" looks like so small next to it.
I would doubt apple will not let tiger be a G5 only update. Think of all the money they will lose. It is with all this talk about tiger going to be a 64 bit OS. Will it still operate smoothly on a 32 bit.
Originally posted by quagmire
I would doubt apple will not let tiger be a G5 only update. Think of all the money they will lose. It is with all this talk about tiger going to be a 64 bit OS. Will it still operate smoothly on a 32 bit.
Yes, it will operate smoothly.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I have to disagree here. Apple made the comment that they hope Adobe hops on board with the new functions but let's bet honest here. Adobe and MS have been handling vital portions of code themselves. Things like malloc and UI widgets in these apps have bypassed Apple tools. This is likely due to their desire to keep as much code cross platform as possible. Apple is slyling making it easier and easier for a smaller developer to compete with the Adobe's and MS by using Apple tools that do the heavy lifting. Core Image/Video are extensible through plugins and if Audio Unites are any indication of the reception that Image and Video Units will receive then prepare for the smaller developers to ship nifty products.
Apple's strategy is fairly clear. If they can't compete directly with Adobe and MS in areas they will ensure smaller devs have the tools to do so if they wish. Audio is undergoing the same transformation. I can buy plenty of Audio Unit synths and effects that are quite capable and generally programmed by no more than two developers.
Imagine what Core Image/Video is going to do for companies like iView Multimedia and Graphic Converter.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a change. However, I don't see the advantage of the document based app taking over the app based document that we have today. I think that if Adobe got on board and designed Acrobat to take advantage of this, and be extensible through 3rd party apps (which would compete with Adobe apps) it might have a chance, but without that support I don't see it going any further than Open Doc did.
Another problem that I see is the logistics of the UI and how pallets and keyboard commands are handled. Just take Illustrator for example, there are keyboard commands that work only if you do not have text selected, if you do then text takes over, and that is in just one Adobe App, when you move from Illustrator to InDesign and Photoshop you have slightly different shortcuts for each app. Just imagine the cluster F@@ you would have when you have 3-4 developers working independently imagine the disconnect.
And how do they all integrate within the document? Click on the photo and you have the 30 layers and all the "photo" commands that you need? From a production standpoint (where you might have 10 different people working on the same file throughout the course of the production cycle) that could be a nightmare. Add in multimedia, with its layers and timeline; a Database or spreadsheet .... you get my point. I think that it would get too confusing in a real world environment.
Now, what happens when you send that document on, the next person in the "chain" uses a competing photo editor. Is there a "standard" format to access all the layers? What "core" engine is used to access the photo, illustration, or movie if the app that created it is not present?
Next, how is the document stored? Is it a core document with associated files similar to a page layout program or is it a single document with all necessary files embedded for easier file management? If the later then imagine the file sizes of documents. I know in print we regularly have "flattened" files hitting 30+ meg for a page, and 70+ for a spread, the layered files are usually 2-4 and sometimes 10 or more times that. I could easily see a 10 page "scalable" document running 5 gig using this model. If you have separate files then you run the risk of separating the files as they move to the next step in the process, which is why DCS files are not the norm in the publishing industry today. The alternative is you have a "collect" feature similar to what is used in prepress today. This is an extra step which I don't think would be popular with your average user that is used to dragging and dropping the file that they are working on and e-mailing or copying it to disk to distribute.
Again, I think that it is a nice idea, but I'm not sure if it would work in the real world.
Originally posted by Kickaha
...Developers need to simply apply a decent UI over the top, and voila. Omnigroup, I'm looking in your direction...
Realistically, what is the chance of getting 2 or more developers to get their individual UI's to work smoothly together? Adobe can't even keep "core" shortcut keys standard across their Apps and that is within the same company.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Nope, because Elements is only a step above iPhoto's editing, IMHO.
I mean the power of Photoshop without the industry workflow bits... Core Image gives us most of that out of the box. Developers need to simply apply a decent UI over the top, and voila. Omnigroup, I'm looking in your direction...
Speaking of which, I expect iPhoto will get a *MASSIVE* upgrade in the image editing dept...
After watching the keynote, I agree, lest photoshop adopt the new technology FAST they are doomed, hell even if they do, at a 700$ price tag they may still be finished for everyone outside the ranks of uber-pros, with what the apple team (one person according to the presenter) made in a friggen week, photoshop hasn't a snowballs chance in hell.
When that kind of power is in a simple sdk, college kids (like me
with that api and 100 codeing hours polishing a propper UI, just think of the possibilities, gee I cant wait to see the next iMovie, and of course iDVD hd at MWSF 2k5, with the new codec, hd==sd-DVD, thats mind-bending!
sure a step up from last years demo of xcode...flower-power
Das all...
Originally posted by hardhead
What I meant was that Tiger will be at it's most efficient and powerful in a 64bit (G5 towers so far...) enabled machine.
Das all...
how? what about it makes it run smoother on a 64 bit machine? the fact is, 64 bit means little for most of us.
Originally posted by applenut
how? what about it makes it run smoother on a 64 bit machine? the fact is, 64 bit means little for most of us.
Right, the only reason Tiger would show its full potential in a 64-bit machine is the fact that those machines, happen to be the most powerful in the Apple line with a large difference (rather gap) from the others. Other than that, only specialized software that exploits the 64-bit nature of the G5 processor would see a massive boost on those machines.
Originally posted by @homenow
Realistically, what is the chance of getting 2 or more developers to get their individual UI's to work smoothly together? Adobe can't even keep "core" shortcut keys standard across their Apps and that is within the same company.
After reading this and the post previous, I think what we have hear is a falyur to communikate.
Core Image/Video/Audio are NOT OpenDoc-ish plugins... they're more like QuickTime.
QT lets developers say "Okay, at this spot There Shalt Be a QT Movie!" and let QuickTime handle all the codecs, etc.
Core Image will let developers say "Okay, this tool will Let You Filter!", and the base APIs can handle the heavy lifting of figuring out what filters are available, applying them, and showing the realtime results. It's a plug-in technology like browser or Photoshop plug-ins, not like OpenDoc containers.
I think the disconnect may be coming from the description of Image Units - they're just filters, sources, and sinks. Core Image handles the crufty infrastructure for you, you just tell it how you want things wired up and off it runs.
It's not an OpenDoc analogue.
Originally posted by Kickaha
After reading this and the post previous, I think what we have hear is a falyur to communikate.
Core Image/Video/Audio are NOT OpenDoc-ish plugins...
Exactly.
All the hype we had about a possible QT7 unveiling wasn't misplaced. Apple is giving their new, cleaned-up section of the API a different moniker. Instead of putting it under the quicktime umbrella, the new APIs are being pushed as a seperate entities. How big this distinction is under the hood remains to be seen.
Originally posted by @homenow
Not really, unless Apple releases a consumer oriented computer for ATI and Nvidia to sell processor upgrades to, untill then Apple's upgrade market will continue to be too small for ATI and Nvidia (who doesn't even offer a retail version of any of their cards out side of Apple branded versions) to take seriously.
I think you are hugely understating the size and desirability of the OEM market for ATI and nVIDIA.
As to the framework and application interoperability you need to get the developers, like Microsoft and Adobe, to support it. The smaller developers may come out with interesting products but they don't have the market saturation or power to make a real difference in the programs that we use every day.
On the other hand, Adobe was a small developer once...
Originally posted by dfiler
Exactly.
All the hype we had about a possible QT7 unveiling wasn't misplaced. Apple is giving their new, cleaned-up section of the API a different moniker. Instead of putting it under the quicktime umbrella, the new APIs are being pushed as a seperate entities. How big this distinction is under the hood remains to be seen.
I think it's larger under the hood than the marketing term change... now the real question is... if this *is* QuickTime 7, more or less, what about cross-platform compatibility? Gone?
Originally posted by Kickaha
I think it's larger under the hood than the marketing term change... now the real question is... if this *is* QuickTime 7, more or less, what about cross-platform compatibility? Gone?
I don't understand what you're saying - are you saying that these new Core SDKs are the new quicktime?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Smart Folders in the Finder, just like iTune's Smart Playlists. Actually, Smart Collections freakin' everywhere.... Smart Playlists/Albums/Folders/Groups/Mailboxes... all through one simple UI. This is simply revolutionary, no other word for it. MS OneNote? Ha. *THIS* is how you gather related data for a project... from any app, in any file format, for any purpose. Welcome to the next big thing.
Imagine assembling research data, all in one place, at the stroke of a single key. It's almost surreal. When I think of the time I have wasted in the past searching for stuff...OMG.
My projects will involve massive amounts of historical research, preparatory to writing historically-based books (and quite a bit of non-fiction stuff too - books/articles). Spotlight will increase my organization and productivity a thousandfold ! Time spent gathering data will decline from days and weeks to hours. I am enraptured by this development. Positively 'enormous' smile on face.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't understand what you're saying - are you saying that these new Core SDKs are the new quicktime?
They take over much of the functionality of QuickTime, yes. Any QuickTime we see from now on on the Mac will, I suspect, simply be an API over the top of Core* that is suited more for workflow programming instead of techy algorithmic end programming. That's part of what makes QuickTime good, is that it is abstract from the computational guts. Core* is closer to computational, and is missing (I think, having not looked at the APIs yet) the unified time-based architecture of QuickTime. So... QT becomes the unifying high-level API, but Core* become the guts.
Which means that if QT is going to remain cross-platform, either Core* has to be ported, (which isn't trivial, but not impossible), or replacement libraries have to be found on each platform.
Edit: The fact that the Core Image supported video card list is essentially the same as the DirectX9 supported list is interesting when thinking about cross-platform...
Originally posted by MCQ
The 30" display is huge - the 20" looks like so small next to it.
Yeah, I opted for the 20" over the 23" simply because I found it to be a pain in the ass moving the mouse around. I don't know how anyone can work with the 30".
Sickos.
Originally posted by Kickaha
They take over much of the functionality of QuickTime, yes. Any QuickTime we see from now on on the Mac will, I suspect, simply be an API over the top of Core* that is suited more for workflow programming instead of techy algorithmic end programming. That's part of what makes QuickTime good, is that it is abstract from the computational guts. Core* is closer to computational, and is missing (I think, having not looked at the APIs yet) the unified time-based architecture of QuickTime. So... QT becomes the unifying high-level API, but Core* become the guts.
Which means that if QT is going to remain cross-platform, either Core* has to be ported, (which isn't trivial, but not impossible), or replacement libraries have to be found on each platform.
Edit: The fact that the Core Image supported video card list is essentially the same as the DirectX9 supported list is interesting when thinking about cross-platform...
For QT to be replaced, they would have to release core* for windows, and hell would freeze before that happens, QT is widely used on windows, hell digital cameras almost accross the board use QT APIs, one api for mac and windows.
If qt is rendered dead, this will mean that something would have po replace it for all three of us Windows QT users