When will Quicktime be ready for prime time?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Steve King wrote:

> "Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:407D6BBC.7417F8A9@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>Richard Ragon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>>>>there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>>>>having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
>>>>folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
>>>>the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>>>
>>>If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
>>>downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
>>>
>>>-Richard
>>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>Very well said.
>>
>
>
> So, Keith had his feelings hurt and is opting out of the thread. Good. He
> never once addressed the issue that I tried to explain, i.e., that QT is
> often just impossible for use for Windows dominent business use. On the
> other hand, for individual users who are even mildly computer literate it is
> terrific. Looks good. Small file size. But, it is still not a geek centric
> world. If it ain't built in to the box that's a huge problem to overcome.
>
> Steve King

Steve, this would be a business decision by the system administrators,
and not by the users of the computers. There's absolutely nothing wrong
with running QT on windows what-so-ever. It runs quite good on windows,
and I personally have the Pro version which gives me tools to be able to
convert QT to .AVI, or even .MPG files.

So, I don't know where this is going.. Except round and round.

-Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

He
> > never once addressed the issue that I tried to explain, i.e., that QT is
> > often just impossible for use for Windows dominent business use. On the
> > other hand, for individual users who are even mildly computer literate
it is
> > terrific. Looks good. Small file size. But, it is still not a geek
centric
> > world. If it ain't built in to the box that's a huge problem to
overcome.
> >
> > Steve King
>
> Steve, this would be a business decision by the system administrators,
> and not by the users of the computers. There's absolutely nothing wrong
> with running QT on windows what-so-ever. It runs quite good on windows,
> and I personally have the Pro version which gives me tools to be able to
> convert QT to .AVI, or even .MPG files.
>
> So, I don't know where this is going.. Except round and round.
>
> -Richard
>

Richard, I do not disagree with anything you or others have said about the
viability of putting a QT player on computers nor do I disagree with the
idea that QT is a top performing delivery tool. What I am trying to say,
evidently very badly, is that the installed base determines what formats
suppliers like myself utilize. I from time to time have to post files for
approval by people in many different facilities within a company with
offices across the country whose equipment is administered by a gaggle of
system administrators. It is simply not profitable for me to spend the time
communicating with all of these people to get them to install QT. And, the
people I really need to reach with my material are disinclined to fight
these battles for me. They just want to see the material, say its good to
go as an expert on the content or change this or that. So I make my
material available in a form suitable for playing on their systems AS THEY
ARE. If Microsoft were to do a deal with Apple to include QT as part of
their operating system, I would use it, not that that is even remotely
likely. My job is to produce video and get it to my clients with the tools
they have. Nothing said here implies that I prefer a particular codec or
that I have a bias for or against MS or Apple or Linux.

Given the circumstances I described above, would you take a different
approach? And, if so, what?

Steve King

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:35:19 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com>:

>Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by millions of
>people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security fixes... ;->
I still use win 98, and all the rest in Linux.
So who cares about updates ;-)
JP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:50:04 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407D6BBC.7417F8A9@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>Richard Ragon wrote:
>
>> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>> > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
>> > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
>> > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>>
>> If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
>> downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
>>
>> -Richard
>
>Bingo!
>
>Very well said.
No it is nonsense, and this because anyone is free to download, there are many
types of plugings, and indeed wmv you need no plugin for and so saves you 10MB
download, and a dollar or more anytime if you have dial up here.
And many short movies in quicktime are not even 10 MB.
NEVER insult the visitors of your website by ONLY presenting latest tech,
which, very often is NOT better, ALWAYS also present an older standard.
At least this was net etiquette before the 'shockwave' 'future splash'
'realplayer' 'quicktime' and a lot of other high bandwidth bloated stuff
appeared that kidies like you get a hard one from.
You do not make it with me that way.
JP

>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

>>There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
>>Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can
>
> create
>
>>using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
>
>
> I realize I'm in the vast _minority_ here but I won't allow that
> bandwidth hogging piece of s/w on my computer, even though I'm no longer
> on dialup. For people on dialup, Flash does nothing but increase the
> time it takes for a site to load. A with Flash enabled sites, it's hard
> to read with all that blinking and moving going on. IMO, it's the most
> abused "feature" anyone can put on their website. A perfect example is
> here:
>
> http://www.stevengotz.com/premiere.htm
>
> This guy knows a _lot_ about Premier but try to navigate his site
> _without_ Flash enabled. I lose count after _nine_ separate instances
> asking me if I want to install Flash. Why do people insist on wanting
> people to install s/w just to enable them to navigate a site?
>
> Sorry, but putting video on a site with Flash is not a good idea for
> most people... imo of course.

Getting tried of making this argument over and over.. but.

An automobile can be used to take your kids to the hospitable in case of
an emergency.. A automobile can also be used to run down a whole bunch
of people on the sidewalk.. Does this make the automobile a bad thing?
Of course not, the driver is who is responsible. So, the same goes
for flash.. most people get a hold of Flash MX, and suddenly think they
are Flash Artist just because they can push the right buttons on a
program. In the hands of amateurs this can be a really bad thing..

So.. Why are you not blaming the author of the web page, instead of the
tools that he used?

-Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:49:24 -0700, Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Quicktime is very much "ready for primetime".

Only with QT alternative. Otherwise, it requests an astounding,
irritating, absurd, insulting amount of computer power. I would rather
convert a Mov to an Avi, than open it in Apple's player.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <XN6dnT4Mns9PKuDdRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote:

> If Microsoft were to do a deal with Apple to include QT as part of
> their operating system, I would use it, not that that is even remotely
> likely.


This sort of gets back to the original question:

Will Quicktime *ever* become wide-spread?

I see that MS Explorer is bundled with new Macs; MS Office is virtually
ubiquitous in the Mac world; Microsoft now owns Virtual PC.

So why will we never see Quicktime bundled with Windows?

Pigeon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <407D6B94.3780BD6C@hotmail.com>,
Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Don't bother replying, I killed this topic in my reader...


Good riddance. And not a minute too soon.

Pigeon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Your videos requires windows media player. Windows Media Player is a
> program that has to be installed, and doesn't even come with the
Windows
> OS. Simple fact.. I tried it with WindowsXP, and it launched with
> associating it with my windows media 9 player plugin and then launched
> it and played.. You should at least place the "windows media player
> needed" logo on your page.

I don't understand how you say it's a separate program that needs to be
installed. I've never had to install Media player seperately from any
install of Windows I've ever done. In fact, trying to _remove_ it is
almost impossible. The only thing you can do is remove it from the Start
menu and the Desktop. I use Media Player Classic from Sourceforge.net
and had to manually set all of my video associations to it from Windows
Media Player just to use it instead of WMP.

> However, I also tried to click on the links with my Red Hat Linux Box,
> and it tried to simply download the file with no way to handle it??
> Same with my Mac OSX machine..
>
> So it appears that you've locked out a huge group of not only Linux
> people, but Mac people too.. Which is entirely your right by the way,
> but in no way is your web page cross compatible.

I mean no disrespect here, but it's not a huge group... probably less
than 5-10% of all computers and most of them are Apple. And I feel that
most people who use Unix variants and Apple boxes will know how to view
a wmv, becasue they are quite used to working in a Windows centric
world. The file has been accessed over a thousand times now and I have
yet to receive a complaint about a user being unable to view it. That's
not to say it hasn't happened but again, with the small percentage of
non-Windows users, it's not a concern to me.

> Here's a much better example of a video web site done entirely in
Flash.
>
> http://www.reevolution.tv/main.php
>
> The Flash provides a user with simple, easy to navigate menus, while
> embedding the video into the flash itself so that no additional
software
> (such as the windows media plug in) is needed. This provides minimal
> use of bandwidth, while maximizing cross compatibility. Which means
> that every single OS can access this site, and view it's content..
Even
> smart internet devices such as the new internet cell phones, and
> internet ready PDAs.

Sorry, I couldn't view your site because, as I've said, I will not
install the plug-in, for reasons I've already mentioned. So all I get
with your site is a big box with a small red X in it.

Like most things on Usenet, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
one. <g>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

>>Your videos requires windows media player. Windows Media Player is a
>>program that has to be installed, and doesn't even come with the
>
> Windows
>
>>OS. Simple fact.. I tried it with WindowsXP, and it launched with
>>associating it with my windows media 9 player plugin and then launched
>>it and played.. You should at least place the "windows media player
>>needed" logo on your page.
>
>
> I don't understand how you say it's a separate program that needs to be
> installed. I've never had to install Media player seperately from any
> install of Windows I've ever done. In fact, trying to _remove_ it is
> almost impossible. The only thing you can do is remove it from the Start
> menu and the Desktop. I use Media Player Classic from Sourceforge.net
> and had to manually set all of my video associations to it from Windows
> Media Player just to use it instead of WMP.

Wow.. This shows you the power of Microsoft.. You didn't even know that
Windows Media Player 9 has to be installed separately. It doesn't come
with Windows XP.

Here's the download page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/gettingstarted/download/download.asp

There are several ways that Microsoft mussels it into your system
without much thought on your part. In fact, people like you didn't even
know it. I recently installed a WindowsXP system and I tried to put it
off, but eventually it won out because of the XP updates needed. Several
updates claim they are WMP dependent. There's just certain winXP updates
that will refuse to upgrade on the machine, until you install it.
Microsoft used this very same tactic with the IE browser too claiming it
was necessary for the OS.

So somewhere along the line you probably installed it, wither it on
windowsupdate.com, on some game CD-ROM, or combined with another program
somehow.. Your the typical windows user that probably just hits the
next button, and doesn't even know what's going on in the background,
never even reading the EULA's.

Oh well..



> Like most things on Usenet, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
> one. <g>

Understood.. I'm a professional web developer myself and my clients who
are business professionals want their sites to be assessable to the
maximum amount of people. Because you never know who that one user who
has that Mac machine, might end up buying a large amount of product or
service from my client. iTunes proved this when they first put up the
iTunes store.. Apple users make up only 5-10% of the computer users, but
that small percentage outsold every single PC based on-line music store,
and continues to do so week after week over again. However, amateur
sites like yours, you're not required to make them accessible to anyone,
and you have that right.

-Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Wow.. This shows you the power of Microsoft.. You didn't even know
that
> Windows Media Player 9 has to be installed separately. It doesn't
come
> with Windows XP.

I certainly hope you are more informed about web development than you
are about Windows. Media Player is an _integral_ part of XP, you
_cannot_ install XP without installing media player. In fact, the EU is
suing MS because it's so integrated. See here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-03-25-player_x.htm

and here:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115399,00.asp

> There are several ways that Microsoft mussels it into your system

Yeah, it's called installing the s/w.

> without much thought on your part. In fact, people like you didn't
even
> know it. I recently installed a WindowsXP system and I tried to put
it

People like me? You have no idea who I am or what my technical
capabilities are.

> off, but eventually it won out because of the XP updates needed.
Several
> updates claim they are WMP dependent. There's just certain winXP
updates
> that will refuse to upgrade on the machine, until you install it.
> Microsoft used this very same tactic with the IE browser too claiming
it
> was necessary for the OS.

Your ignorance of XP is showing, media player is installed with the OS.
You don't seem to be real *nix literate either, judging by Jan's post.
Better stick to Flash.

> So somewhere along the line you probably installed it, wither it on

Yeah, when I put the XP disk in and ran setup.exe.


> windowsupdate.com, on some game CD-ROM, or combined with another
program
> somehow.. Your the typical windows user that probably just hits the
> next button, and doesn't even know what's going on in the background,
> never even reading the EULA's.

Now tell me again exactly _how_ you know what type of person I am? You
_appear_ to be a typcial Usenet blowhard who thinks he knows more than
he does. Unlike you however, I don't ASSume anything about anyone on
Usenet, that way I don't prove myself ass. Too late for you.

> and continues to do so week after week over again. However, amateur
> sites like yours, you're not required to make them accessible to
anyone,
> and you have that right.

Gee, thanks. I feel much better now that you've told me I have that
right.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> In article <XN6dnT4Mns9PKuDdRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
> "Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If Microsoft were to do a deal with Apple to include QT as part of
>>their operating system, I would use it, not that that is even remotely
>>likely.
>
>
>
> This sort of gets back to the original question:
>
> Will Quicktime *ever* become wide-spread?
>
> I see that MS Explorer is bundled with new Macs; MS Office is virtually
> ubiquitous in the Mac world; Microsoft now owns Virtual PC.
>
> So why will we never see Quicktime bundled with Windows?


The answer is Microsoft. They don't want to bundle anything that will
compete with their own proprietary format.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> The answer is Microsoft. They don't want to bundle anything that will
> compete with their own proprietary format.


I would think it has more to do with licensing fees than anything else,
not counting Gates and Jobs egos of course. <g>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

>>The answer is Microsoft. They don't want to bundle anything that will
>>compete with their own proprietary format.
>
>
>
> I would think it has more to do with licensing fees than anything else,
> not counting Gates and Jobs egos of course. <g>
>
>

You might think that, but thinking it doesn't make it so.

In the early days of QuickTime (mid 80s), Apple actually provided the
player to Microsoft and IIRC it was bundled with Windows. Once Microsoft
figured out how to do it, they produced their own software and dropped
QuickTime.

Licensing fees have nothing to do with it. Apple provides the player
without charge. It has more to do with Microsoft wanting to leverage
their majority market share to force out the competition. This thread is
proof that it is working.