Quicktime and iTunes on Linux

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
It's already reality:

http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffice/



But, why can't Apple do it themselves? They have taken a lot from the Open Source market (i.e. OSX, Safari, Darwin, Pages, Keynote, the list goes on!)



This is their chance to give something back and will bring in over a million more Linux customers with iTunes! Linux users don't really have access to a good (legal) Music Service.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    Why put the effort into developing software for a diferent Unix system, when they could spend that energy converting Linux users to OS X?
  • Reply 2 of 27
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tchwojko

    Why put the effort into developing software for a diferent Unix system, when they could spend that energy converting Linux users to OS X?



    Because there are many Unix users who won't go on a proprietary operating system and hardware, and many who won't throw away a system that's working for them.



    How you get new users is by offering them something that works, works better than what they have, and doesn't require them to change everything else they use.



    I think it would only do Apple good to develop an iTunes port for X11. Not sure if they would recover the cost from iTMS and iPods, but the job itself isn't big, I think it would be very good advertising, etc.
  • Reply 3 of 27
    Not being snippy here, just going through point by point:



    Quote:

    Because there are many Unix users who won't...



    How many?

    Quote:

    How you get new users is by offering them something that works,



    OS X

    Quote:

    works better than what they have,



    iTunes on OS X

    Quote:

    and doesn't require them to change everything else they use.



    OS X + X 11

    Quote:

    Not sure if they would recover the cost from iTMS and iPods



    I'd be surprised if this wasn't the answer to your question...

    Quote:

    I think it would be very good advertising...



    You already know about iTunes, so how does it impart any more information to you about Apple's products? What percentage of the Unix users would go get an iPod?



    And finally
    Quote:

    but the job itself isn't big



    The amount of code may be relatively small (and I don't necessarily buy that assumption), but quality assurance and support might be hellish given the number of variations of Linux.
  • Reply 4 of 27
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The holdup on QT for Linux is apparently Sorensen, who won't license their codec for Linux. The rest of QuickTime could be ported pretty easily, and the word is that the QT team is perfectly happy to do it. They want QuickTime everywhere.



    But there's a whole lot of QT content compressed with Sorensen's codec, so unless that codec moves over Linux users would get a second-class implementation.
  • Reply 5 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tchwojko

    Why put the effort into developing software for a diferent Unix system, when they could spend that energy converting Linux users to OS X?



    Because most linux users are so into their OS, that they refuse to hear of the Mac alternative. All of us are trying to find the OS that is roght for us, like OSX is right for me.
  • Reply 6 of 27
    Quote:

    This is their chance to give something back



    actually apple has given a lot back... first idea that comes in mind: khtml.

    dude, i've run linux for 6 years on my desktop.. and you know what?

    it sucks.. it really really sucks if you compare it to what os x has to offer you..

    just forget about linux on the desktop, use it as a server environment...it's

    great for that!



    Like others have pointed out, you can still use X11 on OSX...

    ie, run your X11 apps next to MS Word or final cut pro or whatever...



    you'll finally have productivity with a single drag/drop, click click...

    it just works... which is something you really can't say about Linux
  • Reply 7 of 27
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hdcool

    dude, i've run linux for 6 years on my desktop.. and you know what?

    it sucks.. it really really sucks if you compare it to what os x has to offer you..

    [/B]



    out of curiosity; which distro?



    And Apple takes much more from the Open Source community than it gives. The core of its OS for example; FreeBSD.



    And the 'they should try to lure Linux users into OS X' argument is pathetic. They should try to lure the majority of the computing world; not the minority. The majority is on Windows, not Linux.



    And Windows has both QuickTime and iTunes, so, how does that argument make sense?
  • Reply 8 of 27
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    And Apple takes much more from the Open Source community than it gives.



    So do 99.9999% of the people who install OSS. I thought the idea of open source was that it was *open*?
  • Reply 9 of 27
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    So do 99.9999% of the people who install OSS. I thought the idea of open source was that it was *open*?





    People yes, Companies no. And its a philosophical thing, not money related.



    The idea behind Open Source is that you can take the code and modify it, but you also have to release it to the public. Under GPL at least. FreeBSD can be taken, modified, and still not be released. Fair enough.



    The point is that if I run Linux and want to see the Keynote, I can't. I just am unable to do so. And how exactly are they luring me? By NOT letting me see what they have to offer? And QuickTime is a big player in the media market; a lot of video clips/movies are in .mov format, so I, as a potential Linux user, am unable to watch many things that are in .mov. When you're big in the video field, you try to offer the software needed to watch that to as many people as you can. Or at least let them write some decent codec for that particular format. But not with QuickTime.





    And it has to do with this because someone talked about Apple and OSS and I just expressed my opinion. If you got a problem with that, sue me.
  • Reply 10 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    out of curiosity; which distro?



    And Apple takes much more from the Open Source community than it gives. The core of its OS for example; FreeBSD.



    And the 'they should try to lure Linux users into OS X' argument is pathetic. They should try to lure the majority of the computing world; not the minority. The majority is on Windows, not Linux.



    And Windows has both QuickTime and iTunes, so, how does that argument make sense?




    to your curiosity: i started in the beginning with redhat, then switched to debian and stayed there for a long time.. then went to gentoo, and then in the end I wanted a desktop joe version because i got tired of messing around.

    I took Mandrake... then again i got back to gentoo, and then i literally kicked it outside... then this summer i got myself a powerbook and i'm the happiest person on earth (though it wouldn't be bad if it would have cost less)



    I want a desktop system with which I can really work. That is, edit music, edit movies, do some 3D stuff, simply do some text-editing or surf the web.

    No linux distro in the world will provide me that, and those tenthousand emulator programs, those are pathetic...



    Why iTunes and Quicktime are on windows? Well you said it yourself.. most users are on windows.. Quicktime is a standard in video (h.xxx, h.263, h.264)



    Besides..why should port apple a commercial app (which iTunes in fact is for the music store, if all linux freaks are against commercial stuff... )
  • Reply 11 of 27
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hdcool

    to your curiosity: i started in the beginning with redhat, then switched to debian and stayed there for a long time.. then went to gentoo, and then in the end I wanted a desktop joe version because i got tired of messing around.

    I took Mandrake... then again i got back to gentoo, and then i literally kicked it outside... then this summer i got myself a powerbook and i'm the happiest person on earth (though it wouldn't be bad if it would have cost less)



    I want a desktop system with which I can really work. That is, edit music, edit movies, do some 3D stuff, simply do some text-editing or surf the web.

    No linux distro in the world will provide me that, and those tenthousand emulator programs, those are pathetic...



    Why iTunes and Quicktime are on windows? Well you said it yourself.. most users are on windows.. Quicktime is a standard in video (h.xxx, h.263, h.264)



    Besides..why should port apple a commercial app (which iTunes in fact is for the music store, if all linux freaks are against commercial stuff... )




    That's good and all but try not to call people freaks just because they like an OS or are unable to buy PowerBooks.



    And not all 'linux freaks' are against commercial stuff. Most of them don't want to run Windows, so they choose Linux as Mac OS X cannot be installed on x86 hardware.



    They're humans too, and just as they might buy CDs if they like music, they might also buy music from iTMS. That is, if Apple lets them play it, because, yes, you guessed it, no support for AAC either.
  • Reply 12 of 27
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    People yes, Companies no. And its a philosophical thing, not money related.







    The idea behind Open Source is that you can take the code and modify it, but you also have to release it to the public. Under GPL at least. FreeBSD can be taken, modified, and still not be released. Fair enough.[/b][/quote]



    Except it is. Darwin.



    Quote:

    The point is that if I run Linux and want to see the Keynote, I can't. I just am unable to do so. And how exactly are they luring me? By NOT letting me see what they have to offer? And QuickTime is a big player in the media market; a lot of video clips/movies are in .mov format, so I, as a potential Linux user, am unable to watch many things that are in .mov. When you're big in the video field, you try to offer the software needed to watch that to as many people as you can. Or at least let them write some decent codec for that particular format. But not with QuickTime.



    .mov is open. The only closed codec in current use is Sorenson. Talk to them, they own the thing, not Apple.



    As for the rest of the codecs, VLC works dandily for whatever I've thrown at it. The H.264 OSS folks are making good headway.



    FWIW, I have it on good faith that Sorenson is the linchpin hold up to getting QT on Linux. The rest of the code and codecs are ready to go. As content moves away from Sorenson and towards H.264 and other open codecs, expect to see this block eased and eventually removed altogether.
  • Reply 13 of 27
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kickaha

    Quote:

    Except it is. Darwin.



    Yeah well, when you Open Source something you Open Source the entire thing not keep the best parts of it closed. But that's OK, because under FreeBSD's licence, they don't even need to open Darwin.



    Quote:

    .mov is open. The only closed codec in current use is Sorenson. Talk to them, they own the thing, not Apple.



    Very catchy. Talk to Sorenson. Nice.



    Quote:

    As for the rest of the codecs, VLC works dandily for whatever I've thrown at it. The H.264 OSS folks are making good headway.



    Not on Linux. You can't watch the Keynote on Linux because it requires QuickTime. If you download the whole thing - that is, if you can find it - maybe, maybe you can play it on something like VLC, but download it.. how?



    Quote:

    FWIW, I have it on good faith that Sorenson is the linchpin hold up to getting QT on Linux. The rest of the code and codecs are ready to go. As content moves away from Sorenson and towards H.264 and other open codecs, expect to see this block eased and eventually removed altogether.



    I'm not sure about this, so, here's an honest question; Apple can't port its software (QuickTime) because of Sorenson?



    Honest question; am not too familiar with their legal arrangements.
  • Reply 14 of 27
    the mac mini would do

    i'm sorry for using the word "freaks" but most of the linux crowd is.

    they are blinded by how cool the os is, which it is, but not in the desktopside for real desktop use (coding, testing, serverstuff is fine though)



    just get a mac.. you won't regret, the initial invest is kinda big, but the profit is huge... i doubted a looong time... but now I am converted...



    And I'm not all that big of a fan of apple... as a matter of a fact, i hate their overpriced hardware (see other posts of me :P) but their os is magnificent...



    take the step



    (One other thing.. in my country i have access to the itunes store, but I don't buy songs online... the price they put, is the same a song would cost on a cd if you calculate it...and on that cd you got a nice printed cover too... i buy cd's...also don't have an ipod..too expensive ) <- see.. i don't like to spend lots of money either... but for the OS... it's just something you've got to have.



    Btw, I have people on my contactlist who are real linuxmaniacs(those are, believe me) and they are able to watch the keynote using linux... I'll ask what player they use.. (i think the default player that comes with kde) I'll let you know!
  • Reply 15 of 27
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hdcool



    just get a mac.. you won't regret, the initial invest is kinda big, but the profit is huge... i doubted a looong time... but now I am converted...





    I use Macs for a long time now, but that's not the point. I'm not a 'linux freak' or anything, but I have great respect for those guys. I run Linux, Mac OS X, WinXP and have no problems running propriety software.



    I don't buy music from iTMS myself because the encoding quality sucks. Understandably so.



    Which player, Kaffeine? Its just a GUI frontend to Xine. If Xine can't do it, Kaffeine can't. Personally I don't care much 'cause I watch it on my Mac or Wintel box, but I still believe they (the linux crowd) need a native client.



    Thanks though.
  • Reply 16 of 27
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    Not on Linux. You can't watch the Keynote on Linux because it requires QuickTime. If you download the whole thing - that is, if you can find it - maybe, maybe you can play it on something like VLC, but download it.. how?



    Actually, it just requires an RTSP capable viewer and the appropriate codec. VLC can handle the stream just fine, it's the codec that may or may not be the problem. If it is encoded in MPEG-2, H.264 or such, then you're good to go.



    Quote:

    I'm not sure about this, so, here's an honest question; Apple can't port its software (QuickTime) because of Sorenson?



    Honest question; am not too familiar with their legal arrangements.




    They can port QT, but they cannot distribute the Sorenson codec except on platforms that Sorenson says yes to. Sorenson won't give them the okay for Linux for some reason. So Apple *could* distribute a QuickTime player for Linux... that wouldn't play a lot of .mov files. How would that look? Broken. Busted. People would be pissed.



    As content migrates towards more open codecs, Sorenson will have less of Apple's short hairs in a vice.



    So you may think it is 'catchy', but it's 100% true. Talk to Sorenson.
  • Reply 17 of 27
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    That's good and all but try not to call people freaks just because they like an OS or are unable to buy PowerBooks.





    I am unable to buy a PB, or what I really want, a decent, single chip tower with reasonable upgradeability because I have yet to win the mother fucking lottery! Yet for me Linux on x86 (I have used redhat, fedora, knopix(cd-boot), suse, mandrake), Linux hasnt worked worth crap: what good is an OS that cannot detect my wifi card? I have configured drivers, installed "fixes" and recompiled kernals manualy (something that is an obserd task for a simple driver) and yet my w-nic doesnt work, I have friends who are linux evangelist, coders, and all around uber linux geeks, even they are preplexed



    MANY people are in my position: and I know of many who want osx, but cant just shell out 1,500 for a reasonable desktop that is less powerfull (GPU, RAM, HDD) than their current $800 custom PC.



    Apples hardware is kick ass! I would buy a PM and PB if money were not an object, hell I would buy a 30 inch display and a second PM for the liveing room if money were no object: the fact is money is why so many mac wanna bes will not switch.



    The mac Mini is cool, and well priced, but when the masses wanted a headless mac, we meant a tower, honestly, if they would lower the price of the spG5 1.8 to 999, I would have to save but damn, I would not hesitate for a minute to get one and recomend it to friends and family.



    Why does apple reserve a decent tower enclosure to the uber expencive workstations?



    Linux just doesnt work: that is why we need a low cost tower and / or osx-x86
  • Reply 18 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    out of curiosity; which distro?



    And Apple takes much more from the Open Source community than it gives. The core of its OS for example; FreeBSD.

    ?




    Safari=Camino(Firefox based Mozilla project)

    Terminal in OSX=Terminal in Linux

    Pages and Keynote=clearly some technology taken from OpenOffice.

    Mac OS X Server has Apache, Postfix, Tomcat and MySQL built right in, as well as Samba!
  • Reply 19 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    I am unable to buy a PB, or what I really want, a decent, single chip tower with reasonable upgradeability because I have yet to win the mother fucking lottery! Yet for me Linux on x86 (I have used redhat, fedora, knopix(cd-boot), suse, mandrake), Linux hasnt worked worth crap: what good is an OS that cannot detect my wifi card? I have configured drivers, installed "fixes" and recompiled kernals manualy (something that is an obserd task for a simple driver) and yet my w-nic doesnt work, I have friends who are linux evangelist, coders, and all around uber linux geeks, even they are preplexed





    Linux is an excellent OS. It may be harder to understand, but it's faster and more secure than Windows. That is why Apple used FreeBSD (which is a form of linux) to build the new OS.
  • Reply 20 of 27
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by isomething

    Linux is an excellent OS. It may be harder to understand, but it's faster and more secure than Windows. That is why Apple used FreeBSD (which is a form of linux) to build the new OS.



    Nitpick:



    Linux is an offshoot (indirect) of Unix. It was a cleanroom rewrite to be a work-alike.



    BSD is an offshoot (direct) of Unix. It was derived directly from the Berkeley Unix project.



    FreeBSD is not 'a form of Linux'. Just FYI.
Sign In or Register to comment.