Sony vs Microsoft vs Apple

[Xisiqomelir]

like wasted Japanese marketing

Hey!
i got my insanely cheap JP 360 thanks to it; continue MS; i love buying those 50,000￥ games

My mistake, apparently they have a lock on the "Belgian Expatriate" demographic

[Durandal]

But they're only offering them in SD and you can't buy them directly from AppleTV but must use a computer as an intermediary, compared to the XB360 that offers both HD and direct buys. Sure, both are software issues that can be fixed with a firmware update, but for now, for a company that tends to make stuff that just works, their offering is both convoluted and has inferior image quality.

How is the process of buying music and video on your PC and watching it using AppleTV "convoluted"? There's this thing called the iPod that uses the same process, and it's getting pretty big.

As to image quality, lack of HD is a problem, but not really a huge issue. It looks fine sitting on your couch, even on a big 40-inch TV.

All three companies are fucking annoying with their intentional non-support (since a bunch of el-cheapo DVD players support it there really is no excuse) for .avi Xvid or Divx.

AVI should fucking die. It's an archaic video format that's been hacked to death. I don't blame Apple, Sony or Microsoft for wanting to ditch it. And DivX is a competitor to Microsoft and Apple in the realm of video formats. Neither is under any obligation to license the decoder from them. And no one wants to put money behind XviD for a very good reason: it probably violates several patents, and the creators haven't paid MPEG-4 royalties. The minute someone puts some serious money behind XviD, they're going to get sued.

Aside from that, the AppleTV was playing DivX and XviD within a week of release.

[Praxis]

Actually, since you can hack the AppleTV and install both Perian and Flip4Mac, a hacked AppleTV can run 3ivX, DivX, Flash Screen Video, MS-MPEG4, Sorenson H.263, Truemotion VP6, Xvid, and WMV these days.

[Netko]

How is the process of buying music and video on your PC and watching it using AppleTV "convoluted"? There's this thing called the iPod that uses the same process, and it's getting pretty big.

The iPod is a portable music player with limited connectivity and small screen, appleTV is a set-top box that has to be connected with your intranet and is connected to a (huge) screen, that in most cases (HDTV) is essentially monitor-quality. It even includes a hard drive for storage. There really is no need to involve a computer in the process, unlike with the iPod, so its a more complicated then necessary process.

As to image quality, lack of HD is a problem, but not really a huge issue. It looks fine sitting on your couch, even on a big 40-inch TV.

All three companies are fucking annoying with their intentional non-support (since a bunch of el-cheapo DVD players support it there really is no excuse) for .avi Xvid or Divx.

AVI should fucking die. It's an archaic video format that's been hacked to death. I don't blame Apple, Sony or Microsoft for wanting to ditch it. And DivX is a competitor to Microsoft and Apple in the realm of video formats. Neither is under any obligation to license the decoder from them. And no one wants to put money behind XviD for a very good reason: it probably violates several patents, and the creators haven't paid MPEG-4 royalties. The minute someone puts some serious money behind XviD, they're going to get sued.

Aside from that, the AppleTV was playing DivX and XviD within a week of release.

No arguments there. However, the problem is that currently alternative containers (and we're talking about containers here really) are either badly supported by the mainstream companies (.mkv, .mp4) or are also crappy (.asf/.wmv with its can't seek if file is damaged and .mov with the absolutely atrocious Windows situation). I guess Apple does a decent job of supporting .mp4 and .mov on the mac with QT, but on Windows the support for those formats is atrocious (is it really that much to ask for a consistent handling of .mp4 thumbnails?) and so, since Windows is the de-facto standard, nobody is using them, but rather using the hacked do death .avi.

So while we should be transitioning to the newer containers, it is a pain that the big companies are not supporting .avi. And let's face it, they aren't supporting it not for their dislike of obsolete tech, but because the content companies likely pressured them into it since .avi is the standard pirate container (except in a few cases where .mkv is used - and thats supported even less).

Xvid and Divx support should be automatic if .avi is supported considering that both are supposedly compatible with mp4 ASP - which does seem to be the case in practice in the majority of cases.

[Durandal]

The iPod is a portable music player with limited connectivity and small screen, appleTV is a set-top box that has to be connected with your intranet and is connected to a (huge) screen, that in most cases (HDTV) is essentially monitor-quality. It even includes a hard drive for storage. There really is no need to involve a computer in the process, unlike with the iPod, so its a more complicated then necessary process.

Regardless, people don't seem to mind the process on the iPod.

No arguments there. However, the problem is that currently alternative containers (and we're talking about containers here really) are either badly supported by the mainstream companies (.mkv, .mp4) or are also crappy (.asf/.wmv with its can't seek if file is damaged and .mov with the absolutely atrocious Windows situation).

The MPEG-4 container is supported just fine by the AppleTV. It's a subset of the QuickTime format.

I guess Apple does a decent job of supporting .mp4 and .mov on the mac with QT, but on Windows the support for those formats is atrocious (is it really that much to ask for a consistent handling of .mp4 thumbnails?) and so, since Windows is the de-facto standard, nobody is using them, but rather using the hacked do death .avi.

I don't see how that's Apple's problem. QuickTime is available for Windows.

So while we should be transitioning to the newer containers, it is a pain that the big companies are not supporting .avi. And let's face it, they aren't supporting it not for their dislike of obsolete tech, but because the content companies likely pressured them into it since .avi is the standard pirate container (except in a few cases where .mkv is used - and thats supported even less).

No, in this case, it's about obsoleteness. AVI has poor tagging support, no chapter support, no subtitle support, no support for multiple audio tracks, poor multi-channel audio support, barely supports VBR audio, etc ... It is completely unsuitable for content distribution, and it's no secret that Microsoft has wanted AVI to die for years now.

And Matroska isn't even a blip on the radar. So let's stop pretending that it's worth mentioning.

Xvid and Divx support should be automatic if .avi is supported considering that both are supposedly compatible with mp4 ASP - which does seem to be the case in practice in the majority of cases.

Then tell whoever you get your pirated media from to put it in an MPEG-4 file, and you shouldn't have any problems.

[Praxis]

No arguments there. However, the problem is that currently alternative containers (and we're talking about containers here really) are either badly supported by the mainstream companies (.mkv, .mp4)

I really don't see what you're talking about. I've always preferred .mp4 for everything, because I know the file will play just fine on my Mac, on my PC, on my iPod, in iTunes, and if I had one, even on a PSP.

Do you not have QuickTime on your PC? MP4's play fine when I double-click on them, and iTunes organizes them for me if I use it. What's badly supported about it?

[Stark]

I'm currently experimenting with converting to mp4, and even VLC plays mp4s just fine. I don't see a support problem at all.

On another note, my converted video sort of changes colour balance, and becomes a bit orangey. Is this normal, or am I doing it wrong? It also seems to reduce the 'size' of the video frame, but making it fullscreen is still similar quality and not stretched and blurred to shit. Is *that* normal?

[Durandal]

It depends on exactly what type of conversion you're doing. If you're just converting the container from AVI (for example) to MPEG-4, the video quality should be untouched. But if you're re-encoding the video, yeah, you'll notice a degradation in quality.

[Netko]

The iPod is a portable music player with limited connectivity and small screen, appleTV is a set-top box that has to be connected with your intranet and is connected to a (huge) screen, that in most cases (HDTV) is essentially monitor-quality. It even includes a hard drive for storage. There really is no need to involve a computer in the process, unlike with the iPod, so its a more complicated then necessary process.

Regardless, people don't seem to mind the process on the iPod.

Right - because for the iPod the process is reasonable considering the characteristics of the device. On the other hand, for AppleTV it is unnecessarily complicated - as indicated in multiple reviews.

No arguments there. However, the problem is that currently alternative containers (and we're talking about containers here really) are either badly supported by the mainstream companies (.mkv, .mp4) or are also crappy (.asf/.wmv with its can't seek if file is damaged and .mov with the absolutely atrocious Windows situation).

The MPEG-4 container is supported just fine by the AppleTV. It's a subset of the QuickTime format.

I'm talking about overall support which would push people to adapt those containers for their usage. .mp4 is not supported on Windows (you know, that operating system with 90ish % of the market) OOB, the usual method of enabling that support is installing QT, which, on Windows is a piece of shit that should die (its a resource hog and unstable compared to non-QT codecs, doesn't integrate with the platforms media system making any player that does support it have to have custom support, the supplied player is intentionally crippled unless you use iTunes), and while the alternatives are somewhat better (Hlaali splitter, ffdshow), they still aren't as good for experience as .avi is (for the most common case of just video and audio with an intact file). Both have problems with providing thumbnails (as far as I can tell QT doesn't provide them at all, however I'm using QT alternate because I have no need for the useless bloat of iTunes so maybe the real version does, while the alternate combo can be made to do it with very inconsistent results - sometimes it does show them, sometimes it doesn't). The encoder situation (aside from proffesional solutions) as only recently gotten decent.

I alreay noted that Apple has good support for the mp4 in their own products.

I guess Apple does a decent job of supporting .mp4 and .mov on the mac with QT, but on Windows the support for those formats is atrocious (is it really that much to ask for a consistent handling of .mp4 thumbnails?) and so, since Windows is the de-facto standard, nobody is using them, but rather using the hacked do death .avi.

I don't see how that's Apple's problem. QuickTime is available for Windows.

I'm not saying it is. What I am saying is since that is the current situation, Apple (and everyone else) should support .avi in a media extender situation as a legacy solution at the very least.

So while we should be transitioning to the newer containers, it is a pain that the big companies are not supporting .avi. And let's face it, they aren't supporting it not for their dislike of obsolete tech, but because the content companies likely pressured them into it since .avi is the standard pirate container (except in a few cases where .mkv is used - and thats supported even less).

No, in this case, it's about obsoleteness. AVI has poor tagging support, no chapter support, no subtitle support, no support for multiple audio tracks, poor multi-channel audio support, barely supports VBR audio, etc ... It is completely unsuitable for content distribution, and it's no secret that Microsoft has wanted AVI to die for years now.

And Matroska isn't even a blip on the radar. So let's stop pretending that it's worth mentioning.

Right, I agree, which is why I'm not suggesting they start using it for iTunes distribution - but a lot of people have a bunch of content (both legit or otherwise) in .avi - it should be supported as a legacy format, especially because, aside from the container support, everything is already in place or nearly so for all the competitors. Not supporting .avi is not in the interest of the consumer.

I only mentioned Matroska for completeness sake - the reality is that they're going to remain a niche format like Ogg, although feature wise its pretty much equivalent to .mp4.

Stark, VLC plays them fine yes, but VLC is shit from an interface standpoint - its a good player to use when you're not sure what in your overly complicated directshow filter system is causing you to not manage to play something, but, like QT, it really exists in its own little universe.

And you can't say a format is supported well when the solutions mentioned are two products that don't tie in with the media platform of Windows and a third party solution for that media platform that sort of works but still doesn't support certain features properly (thumbnailing for one).

[Durandal]

Right - because for the iPod the process is reasonable considering the characteristics of the device. On the other hand, for AppleTV it is unnecessarily complicated - as indicated in multiple reviews.

It's certainly not a deal-breaker.

I'm talking about overall support which would push people to adapt those containers for their usage. .mp4 is not supported on Windows (you know, that operating system with 90ish % of the market) OOB, the usual method of enabling that support is installing QT, which, on Windows is a piece of shit that should die (its a resource hog and unstable compared to non-QT codecs, doesn't integrate with the platforms media system making any player that does support it have to have custom support, the supplied player is intentionally crippled unless you use iTunes),

QuickTime is not a codec. It is a media architecture. You may not like the player, but that's completely different from what QuickTime actually is. And MPEG-4 is supported on Windows just fine, through QuickTime or any number of other MPEG-4 compliant players out there, like VLC, numerous Windows Media Player decoders, DivX, XviD, etc ...

and while the alternatives are somewhat better (Hlaali splitter, ffdshow), they still aren't as good for experience as .avi is (for the most common case of just video and audio with an intact file). Both have problems with providing thumbnails (as far as I can tell QT doesn't provide them at all,

It provides poster frames. It has for over a decade. And there's nothing stopping anyone from using the API to grab those frames or to just generate their own thumbnail. I think you're very confused as to how these things work.

however I'm using QT alternate because I have no need for the useless bloat of iTunes so maybe the real version does, while the alternate combo can be made to do it with very inconsistent results - sometimes it does show them, sometimes it doesn't). The encoder situation (aside from proffesional solutions) as only recently gotten decent.

The encoder situation is entirely dependent upon who writes the encoder.

I'm not saying it is. What I am saying is since that is the current situation, Apple (and everyone else) should support .avi in a media extender situation as a legacy solution at the very least.

No one wants to market to pirates. The pirates are the people who wouldn't pay for the content in the first place. Tell the people you get illegal rips from to start encoding in MPEG-4. There are plenty of free encoders out there.

Right, I agree, which is why I'm not suggesting they start using it for iTunes distribution - but a lot of people have a bunch of content (both legit or otherwise) in .avi -

Really? I hardly ever see legitimate content out there that's distributed in AVI anymore. It's all QuickTime and Windows Media these days.

it should be supported as a legacy format, especially because, aside from the container support, everything is already in place or nearly so for all the competitors. Not supporting .avi is not in the interest of the consumer.

Yes, it is. AVI is not a standard format and carries no guarantees of interoperability. QuickTime has support for the actual AVI standard, and guess what? It doesn't properly play the hacked-to-shit versions. Consumers should be given interoperable formats, not hacked-together garbage produced by the black market.

There is absolutely no reason that AVI should stick around, and the fact that it's alive today is almost solely due to pirated media.

[MKSheppard]

I'm talking about overall support which would push people to adapt those containers for their usage. .mp4 is not supported on Windows (you know, that operating system with 90ish % of the market) OOB, the usual method of enabling that support is installing QT, which, on Windows is a piece of shit that should die (its a resource hog and unstable compared to non-QT codecs, doesn't integrate with the platforms media system making any player that does support it have to have custom support, the supplied player is intentionally crippled unless you use iTunes), and while the alternatives are somewhat better (Hlaali splitter, ffdshow), they still aren't as good for experience as .avi is (for the most common case of just video and audio with an intact file). Both have problems with providing thumbnails (as far as I can tell QT doesn't provide them at all, however I'm using QT alternate because I have no need for the useless bloat of iTunes so maybe the real version does, while the alternate combo can be made to do it with very inconsistent results - sometimes it does show them, sometimes it doesn't). The encoder situation (aside from proffesional solutions) as only recently gotten decent.

A-Fucking-Men

Quicktime was you know, cool, back in what, 1993, 1994; when multimedia was still new; in fact some assets of it are cool, look at the ST:TNG Technical Manual and it's quicktime stuff.

But now it just needs to fucking die. I cannot repeat how many times I hate quicktime. Stupid proprietary apple crippleware. Remember people, proprietary formats are only evil when Microsoft does it!

[Stark]

Although I'd never used it before, just my experiences messing around today have me preferring the mp4 container: everything that's been hacked into avi with external files is internal in mp4, it's far more supported by various media hardware, and plays fine on all the software players I use on my system. I'm not a fan of the Windows QT player, but who cares? I never use it.

Once I work out the colour-changing problem, I'm probably going to move much of my media to mp4 just to ease use with things like portable players and my 360. It is approximately the same size/quality ratio (even with my amateur conversion attempts) but more 'useful' and has better features and support for those features due to standardisation.

[Praxis]

Really? I hardly ever see legitimate content out there that's distributed in AVI anymore. It's all QuickTime and Windows Media these days.

Other than fan videos, I've never seen ANY legitimate (commercial) content in AVI...

[Nephtys]

I'm talking about overall support which would push people to adapt those containers for their usage. .mp4 is not supported on Windows (you know, that operating system with 90ish % of the market) OOB, the usual method of enabling that support is installing QT, which, on Windows is a piece of shit that should die (its a resource hog and unstable compared to non-QT codecs, doesn't integrate with the platforms media system making any player that does support it have to have custom support, the supplied player is intentionally crippled unless you use iTunes), and while the alternatives are somewhat better (Hlaali splitter, ffdshow), they still aren't as good for experience as .avi is (for the most common case of just video and audio with an intact file). Both have problems with providing thumbnails (as far as I can tell QT doesn't provide them at all, however I'm using QT alternate because I have no need for the useless bloat of iTunes so maybe the real version does, while the alternate combo can be made to do it with very inconsistent results - sometimes it does show them, sometimes it doesn't). The encoder situation (aside from proffesional solutions) as only recently gotten decent.

A-Fucking-Men

Quicktime was you know, cool, back in what, 1993, 1994; when multimedia was still new; in fact some assets of it are cool, look at the ST:TNG Technical Manual and it's quicktime stuff.

But now it just needs to fucking die. I cannot repeat how many times I hate quicktime. Stupid proprietary apple crippleware. Remember people, proprietary formats are only evil when Microsoft does it!

Given how none of my own personal media electronics seem to support .MOV, or MP4/M4A/Whatever, I fully hereby endorse whatever Shep is saying. I am just skimming over it, but I imagine it has something to do with artillery as well. No comment on that.

[Uraniun235]

Quicktime was you know, cool, back in what, 1993, 1994; when multimedia was still new; in fact some assets of it are cool, look at the ST:TNG Technical Manual and it's quicktime stuff.

But now it just needs to fucking die. I cannot repeat how many times I hate quicktime. Stupid proprietary apple crippleware. Remember people, proprietary formats are only evil when Microsoft does it!

I've heard that Quicktime actually runs pretty nifty on Apple stuff, and that it's just the Windows implementation of it that completely blows.

As for legit/non-legit, I think we can all agree that the Matroska container format is king of the "illegitimate" material. There's porn companies that release videos on the internet using AVI, but the only things I've seen MKV used for are illicit anime fansubs. (One of my friends gets really steamed up about that too because it's a gigantic bitch to convert MKV files to DVDs)

[Stark]

Anything I can think of to play video on supports mp4. PSPs, iPods (and other portables), 360, PS3, DVD-Rs, etc. This is much better support than avi - and far better support than avi + whatever codec + subs.

For instance, moving my media to mp4 will take me from 'will play only on my DVD-R and absolutely nothing else that isn't a computer' to 'will play on absolutely everything I own that plays media except my basic DVD player'. This also means full support for all of the usually-unsupported things like subs, chapters, etc - which I've never got working with avi on anything that wasn't a computer.

[Durandal]

A-Fucking-Men

Quicktime was you know, cool, back in what, 1993, 1994; when multimedia was still new; in fact some assets of it are cool, look at the ST:TNG Technical Manual and it's quicktime stuff.

But now it just needs to fucking die. I cannot repeat how many times I hate quicktime. Stupid proprietary apple crippleware. Remember people, proprietary formats are only evil when Microsoft does it!

The QuickTime file format is very well documented. And nothing, I repeat, nothing is stopping anyone from using Apple's APIs to make a QuickTime movie player with every feature that QuickTime Pro supports. In fact, I'm pretty sure people have done this on Windows. It's certainly been done on Mac OS X. Hell, one of Apple's developer examples details how to do this. You can even do it in AppleScript.

[Pu-239]

I actually like MKVs, allows flexibility on how you want subs displayed, plus it supports various fonts applied to subs, etc etc etc. Works beautifully in Mplayer (1.0RC1). Of course, if you want to play on anything other than a computer, yeah, you'll probably want mp4

[Darth Wong]

A-Fucking-Men

Quicktime was you know, cool, back in what, 1993, 1994; when multimedia was still new; in fact some assets of it are cool, look at the ST:TNG Technical Manual and it's quicktime stuff.

But now it just needs to fucking die. I cannot repeat how many times I hate quicktime. Stupid proprietary apple crippleware. Remember people, proprietary formats are only evil when Microsoft does it!

The QuickTime file format is very well documented. And nothing, I repeat, nothing is stopping anyone from using Apple's APIs to make a QuickTime movie player with every feature that QuickTime Pro supports. In fact, I'm pretty sure people have done this on Windows. It's certainly been done on Mac OS X. Hell, one of Apple's developer examples details how to do this. You can even do it in AppleScript.

I know you've become an Apple evangelist ever since you started working for them, but this is Tony Snow-level spin-doctoring and you know it. Without the Sorenson codec, the Quicktime file format is useless for actually viewing any of the fucking Quicktime movies that Apple is pushing onto the Internet, because they all use that codec. So don't give me this cock and bull story about how Quicktime is open. This is like saying that Windows proprietary formats are open because they're sent over TCP/IP. It does no one any good if only part of it is open, for fuck's sake.

[Durandal]

I know you've become an Apple evangelist ever since you started working for them, but this is Tony Snow-level spin-doctoring and you know it.

The file format is documented and open. It's right there in that giant 5.3 MB PDF file. What is contained in that format is up to whoever encodes the stream.

Without the Sorenson codec, the Quicktime file format is useless for actually viewing any of the fucking Quicktime movies that Apple is pushing onto the Internet, because they all use that codec.

If you don't like the fact that there isn't an open Sorenson decoder, I've got a great company for you to talk to: Sorenson Communications. They make a codec for QuickTime; they have absolutely nothing to do with QuickTime itself. And I don't know if they even make video codecs anymore.

So don't give me this cock and bull story about how Quicktime is open.

The file format is.

This is like saying that Windows proprietary formats are open because they're sent over TCP/IP. It does no one any good if only part of it is open, for fuck's sake.

Your argument is saying that XML isn't an open format if people embed binary data structures in it, which is perfectly possible and supported by the standard. Open container, closed contents. So if you don't like that Sorenson is a closed codec, talk to Sorenson. And these days, every video on Apple's web site is h.264 and AAC. Everything from movie trailers to iTunes downloads.

QuickTime is a media architecture, file format and framework. It is not a player. It is not a codec. It most certainly not the Sorenson codec. You can make a QuickTime codec that is either open or closed, and there are plenty of open codecs, like Perian and the XviD component.

I'm not saying that the entirety of QuickTime is open. It's not. The file format is. Theoretically, someone could re-implement the QuickTime framework with a totally open architecture and totally open codecs. All they have to support is the file format.

[Darth Wong]

The file format is documented and open. It's right there in that giant 5.3 MB PDF file. What is contained in that format is up to whoever encodes the stream.

(sigh) As I said, Tony Snow-level spin-doctoring. You admit yourself that Apple chooses to use proprietary codecs. The result is that if you don't run on an Apple-approved OS, you can't legally play the movies. How many legal Linux Quicktime players are there, Damien?

Your argument is saying that XML isn't an open format if people embed binary data structures in it, which is perfectly possible and supported by the standard.

And guess what, genius: if you embedded a proprietary format in XML and then declared that it's an open file format because of the XML, you would be lying.

[Praxis]

I'm talking about overall support which would push people to adapt those containers for their usage. .mp4 is not supported on Windows (you know, that operating system with 90ish % of the market) OOB, the usual method of enabling that support is installing QT, which, on Windows is a piece of shit that should die (its a resource hog and unstable compared to non-QT codecs, doesn't integrate with the platforms media system making any player that does support it have to have custom support, the supplied player is intentionally crippled unless you use iTunes), and while the alternatives are somewhat better (Hlaali splitter, ffdshow), they still aren't as good for experience as .avi is (for the most common case of just video and audio with an intact file). Both have problems with providing thumbnails (as far as I can tell QT doesn't provide them at all, however I'm using QT alternate because I have no need for the useless bloat of iTunes so maybe the real version does, while the alternate combo can be made to do it with very inconsistent results - sometimes it does show them, sometimes it doesn't). The encoder situation (aside from proffesional solutions) as only recently gotten decent.

A-Fucking-Men

Quicktime was you know, cool, back in what, 1993, 1994; when multimedia was still new; in fact some assets of it are cool, look at the ST:TNG Technical Manual and it's quicktime stuff.

But now it just needs to fucking die. I cannot repeat how many times I hate quicktime. Stupid proprietary apple crippleware. Remember people, proprietary formats are only evil when Microsoft does it!

Given how none of my own personal media electronics seem to support .MOV, or MP4/M4A/Whatever, I fully hereby endorse whatever Shep is saying. I am just skimming over it, but I imagine it has something to do with artillery as well. No comment on that.

I can't seem to think of anything I have that DOESN'T support MP4. My iPod plays it, my PC plays it, my Mac plays it, heck, it's even part of the HD-DVD and Blu-ray spec.

The only thing I've got that doesn't support it is my DS! (I've only managed to hack it to play MPEG-1 and a specialty format).

I'm curious what the heck you've got in that case. Apparently, you don't have a Mac, and don't run QuickTime or VLC on any of your Windows or Linux machines, and don't own an iPod or an XBox 360 or a PS3...or you're just uninformed.

(sigh) As I said, Tony Snow-level spin-doctoring. You admit yourself that Apple chooses to use proprietary codecs. The result is that if you don't run on an Apple-approved OS, you can't legally play the movies. How many legal Linux Quicktime players are there, Damien?

Apple does not own MP4 and I'm not advocating .mov (heck, I don't think even the iPod supports traditional .mov QuickTime files). MP4 plays fine on Linux.

[Durandal]

(sigh) As I said, Tony Snow-level spin-doctoring. You admit yourself that Apple chooses to use proprietary codecs. The result is that if you don't run on an Apple-approved OS, you can't legally play the movies. How many legal Linux Quicktime players are there, Damien?

VLC, for one. Apple has never sued VLC or sent a cease and desist their way.

And guess what, genius: if you embedded a proprietary format in XML and then declared that it's an open file format because of the XML, you would be lying.

I'm not talking about this hypothetical XML format. I'm talking about XML itself, just like I'm talking about QuickTime itself. Now, if you consider a QuickTime file containing Sorenson video as a file format in and of itself, then sure, it's closed. But it's a closed file, not a closed file format.

[Netko]

QuickTime is not a codec. It is a media architecture. You may not like the player, but that's completely different from what QuickTime actually is. And MPEG-4 is supported on Windows just fine, through QuickTime or any number of other MPEG-4 compliant players out there, like VLC, numerous Windows Media Player decoders, DivX, XviD, etc ...

It provides poster frames. It has for over a decade. And there's nothing stopping anyone from using the API to grab those frames or to just generate their own thumbnail. I think you're very confused as to how these things work.

I know QT is an architecture - my complaint is that it doesn't even attempt to expose parts needed to DirectShow (which is the Windows architecture for the same basic subset of features ie. playing the content). It could easily leave advanced functionality (how much of it is redundant on the Windows side is open to question) to itself while providing codecs and other necessary filters so that any Windows player could play the content (similar to the VfW and DirectShow dichotomy), but it doesn't. And I of course knew it provides a facility for making thumbnails (it would be a pretty piss poor if it didn't), however that possibility isn't exposed, as far as I can tell (again, using alternate personally), in the system through explorer or otherwise. Both of which I would expect to be done if QT developers wanted it to be a quality solution on Windows that seamlessly provides its functionality. If non-recognition is a problem it could always display a watermark in the decoded video (like divx does). Because it doesn't we have the problem of mp4 (who's playback is usually provided through QT) is quite a bit less optimally supported then avi and (especially, its a Microsoft container after all) wmv/asf for the most common scenario - regular playback of video/audio.

If you've got a bunch of other mp4 only devices then you'll bare it (for instance, in Stark's case converting is reasonable), however if you're only considering about buying one device it becomes a big con to be forced to convert your entire collection (multiple days conversion possible!) to an suboptimal format for the platform.

Yes, it is. AVI is not a standard format and carries no guarantees of interoperability. QuickTime has support for the actual AVI standard, and guess what? It doesn't properly play the hacked-to-shit versions. Consumers should be given interoperable formats, not hacked-together garbage produced by the black market.

There is absolutely no reason that AVI should stick around, and the fact that it's alive today is almost solely due to pirated media.

So you're acknowledging that instead of giving consumers what they want (which, despite its drawbacks and the source of the content, seems to be avi) the big three of this arena are waging a pointless kulturkampf against pirates. Funny how the makers of all those cheapo DVD players go to the trouble of providing avi support despite its drawbacks, while the big three (MS, Sony, Apple) don't.

[Darth Wong]

(sigh) As I said, Tony Snow-level spin-doctoring. You admit yourself that Apple chooses to use proprietary codecs. The result is that if you don't run on an Apple-approved OS, you can't legally play the movies. How many legal Linux Quicktime players are there, Damien?

VLC, for one. Apple has never sued VLC or sent a cease and desist their way.

And it can't play the trailers on Apple's Quicktime site.

And guess what, genius: if you embedded a proprietary format in XML and then declared that it's an open file format because of the XML, you would be lying.

I'm not talking about this hypothetical XML format. I'm talking about XML itself, just like I'm talking about QuickTime itself. Now, if you consider a QuickTime file containing Sorenson video as a file format in and of itself, then sure, it's closed. But it's a closed file, not a closed file format.

You're hair-splitting. Why is it that DIVX files, even when they are actually formatted as AVI files, are still called DIVX files? Oh yes, because that's the codec. Only Quicktime apologists get to pretend that it's an open format even though proprietary codecs are usually used.