View Single Post
Old 24 September 2007, 10:58   #28
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 19
The article is clearly biased, and inaccurate in the extreme. I'm a frequent user of Quicktime content, and followed the development of ActiveMovie from the start.

I have read various parts of the anti-trust law suit, basically Microsoft wanted a common format, and Apple refused the offer. Quicktime could have existed as additional codecs under Windows, which is the way additional formats are meant to be added. Apple even complained about having to support DirectX!, which is much easier way to get hardware acceleration for all video cards.

I don't even recall, the so called sabotage at all, when updating ASF/NetShow/WMP in the past. It is simply refering to the default programs, used for each type of multimedia file. Many multimedia players auto changed the file types for multimedia files, without permission in the past.

If Quicktime under Windows failed, it was solely due to Apple's poor support and greed:
Quicktime 2.0/2.1 only offered hardware acceleration for a few specific video cards, since it didn't support DirectX.
Quicktime 2.5 was never even released for Windows.
Quicktime 3.0 and onwards requires payment for basic features (Full screen playback, saving movies) available in previous release (Quicktime 2.5 for Macintosh).

Even worse, a license for Quicktime is only meant to last for one x.0 version. Users are expected to pay again for each major release, even if Quicktime is only used for play back.

Thank goodness for the Quicktime Alternative package, which allows play back through alternative multimedia players.
Kirben is offline  
Page generated in 0.03907 seconds with 10 queries