Apple owes FreeBSD

M

makkie_messer

Registered
Apple has borrowed a lot from FreeBSD. How about doing FreeBSD a favor by simply making a version of the standard QuickTime player for FreeBSD 5.1 ?

It's not that much to ask. A few small changes and a recompile are probably all that's needed. This would be cheap and easy for Apple but it would mean a lot to FreeBSD users.
 
I'm not sure I would say Apple owes FreeBSD anything. Apple used 4.3/4.4BSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD elements before they started using FreeBSD. All of these are used under the same type of restrictions and Apple has made good on sharing it's advances with the rest of the BSD community.

Quicktime is not part of that. Quicktime is a proprietary software/format that Apple produces. Even then Apple shared much of it's work openly with MPEG4. Besides, as I recall the needed resources for making a Quicktime player are not restrictive from Apple's end (I have SGIs which I use for both playing and editing/capturing Quicktime content), it is the respective codec producers who set many of the restrictions Apple faces.

Things aren't nearly as easy when working with proprietary software as it is in the open source world. I thought Apple more than made up for any short comings with their lack of a player by providing the source for Darwin Streaming Quicktime server software for free. In the end, Apple can only release what is actually theirs, and is only going to release what helps (or at least doesn't hurt) their business.
 
Racer said: "Things aren't nearly as easy when working with proprietary software as it is in the open source world."

But the opposite is true. ;-) Apple has much more freedom when working with their proprietary code. They decide what to release as source and what not - for which platform, too.

However: If Apple wanted to increase QuickTime's impact in the market, they'd try and make QuickTime available in binary form for more operating systems. However, that wouldn't necessarily help Apple's open source strategy. (They _do_ have one!)

But I hope that Apple really starts to propagate MPEG-4 more. For example, they should urge movie companies to provide trailers as MPEG-4. It's _the_ open standard.
 
fryke said:
But the opposite is true. ;-) Apple has much more freedom when working with their proprietary code. They decide what to release as source and what not - for which platform, too.
Click to expand...

If only we were talking solely about Apple's code. Like Rhapsody and Mac OS 8/9, other people have their hands in with licenses of their own. Why didn't Apple just release Rhapsody? They couldn't. They had to remove anything that wasn't open source or their own code from that software first.

The number one codec for Quicktime isn't made by Apple, it is made by Sorenson. My SGI can't play Quicktime movies made using Sorenson, but it can play and create Quicktime movies using some of Apple's own (or open license) codecs.

Like I said, proprietary code like Quicktime (and Rhapsody) aren't as easy to work with as open source. I very much doubt that anyone would consider Quicktime without third party codecs worth the trouble of downloading on a Linux or FreeBSD system.

If Apple can get people to switch to MPEG4, this would all be much easier rather than the couple dozen audio and video codecs that currently come with Quicktime that Apple has no control over.
 
What is being suggested is a binary distribution of the QuickTime player for FreeBSD, just like the binary distribution Apple has already made available for Microsoft Windows. Port the QuickTime Player to FreeBSD.

Why should Apple do this for FreeBSD?

Much of OS X is based on FreeBSD. Apple is taking so much from FreeBSD that Apple boasts of incorporating the latest work from FreeBSD on Apple's website here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
where a web-link states that OS X is:
"Based on UNIX Industrial-strength stability, with X11 and FreeBSD 5."

Did you read that? OS X's "Industrial-strength stability" is based on "FreeBSD 5" by Apple's own admission. Where would OS X be without it's "Industrial-strength stability" ?

and if you follow that link you will go this URL:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
where at the top of the web page Apple declares boldly:
"Panther integrates features from state-of-the-art FreeBSD 5"
and brags that users can
"Use the latest commands and libraries from the popular FreeBSD distribution."

OS X's FreeBSD features are highlighted in a very good front-page article at this very website, called "Encoding an iMovie to SVCD", found here:
http://www.macosx.com/content/article.php?cid=38
where the first point in the requirements list is 'OS 10.2 or higher (with "BSD Subsystem" installed)'

Apple took Jordan Hubbard from "The FreeBSD Team" to develop for OS X.

Even OS X's man pages are mostly taken from FreeBSD.

The list goes on and on.

After Apple has taken so much from FreeBSD, I think it would be only fair if Apple provided the FreeBSD community with a QuickTime player. It's not much to ask. I would even do the port for free, if Apple asked me to.

Apple made a QT-player for Microsoft Windows without any problems. Apple gives away the "QuickTime player for Windows" for free. Why not FreeBSD? What's the problem? And don't hand me any non-sense about codecs. Apple owns the QuickTime codec/format, it's theirs to do with what they will. Moreover, If leagal issues about codecs were a problem, Apple wouldn't have given Windows a free QuickTime player. Simply give to FreeBSD users what Apple gave to Windows users.

Apple doesn't have to release any source code for the QuickTime player or source code for codecs, simply make a binary distribution of the QuickTime player available through the FreeBSD "Ports" collection. OpenBSD and NetBSD users will be able to use this "FreeBSD QuickTime player" too, as all BSD's, on the same hardware, are binary compatible. Apple will be paying back the whole BSD community through this nice gesture.

Finally, this would increase traffic to Apple's own website where BSD users would go to use their new QuickTime players to watch movie trailers and, maybe, then buy Apple products. This is in Apple's best interest, from a marketing perspective.

Why would anyone be against increasing the number of people who use Apple products? I say increase Apple's market! Increase the number of QuickTime users!

Go Apple!
 
makkie_messer said:
What is being suggested is a binary distribution of the QuickTime player for FreeBSD, just like the binary distribution Apple has already made available for Microsoft Windows. Port the QuickTime Player to FreeBSD.

Why should Apple do this for FreeBSD?

Much of OS X is based on FreeBSD. Apple is taking so much from FreeBSD that Apple boasts of incorporating the latest work from FreeBSD on Apple's website here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
where a web-link states that OS X is:
"Based on UNIX Industrial-strength stability, with X11 and FreeBSD 5."

Did you read that? OS X's "Industrial-strength stability" is based on "FreeBSD 5" by Apple's own admission. Where would OS X be without it's "Industrial-strength stability" ?

and if you follow that link you will go this URL:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
where at the top of the web page Apple declares boldly:
"Panther integrates features from state-of-the-art FreeBSD 5"
and brags that users can
"Use the latest commands and libraries from the popular FreeBSD distribution."

OS X's FreeBSD features are highlighted in a very good front-page article at this very website, called "Encoding an iMovie to SVCD", found here:
http://www.macosx.com/content/article.php?cid=38
where the first point in the requirements list is 'OS 10.2 or higher (with "BSD Subsystem" installed)'

Apple took Jordan Hubbard from "The FreeBSD Team" to develop for OS X.

Even OS X's man pages are mostly taken from FreeBSD.

The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

And in both ways. Apple returns on it's development. Or do you honestly think it only goes one way?

Also, when you say Apple took Jordan Hubbard are you saying they kidnapped him? He joined Apple freely as I recall.

What's the problem? And don't hand me any non-sense about codecs. Apple owns the QuickTime codec/format, it's theirs to do with what they will.
Okay, so you are here to rant. That is good to know. It means that you are going to think anything that doesn't support your rant is non-sense.

Apple doesn't have to release any source code for the QuickTime player or source code for codecs, simply make a binary distribution of the QuickTime player available through the FreeBSD "Ports" collection. OpenBSD and NetBSD users will be able to use this "FreeBSD QuickTime player" too, as all BSD's, on the same hardware, are binary compatible. Apple will be paying back the whole BSD community through this nice gesture.
Click to expand...

Answer me this one... why isn't there a Darwin Quicktime Player? Isn't Darwin Apple's own operating system? Why haven't they ported it to that?

Your answer has been posted. There is enough code out in the wild to make a Quicktime Player for any OS, just don't expect it to have anything beyond the freely available codecs.

:rolleyes:

Yep, this thread is pointless.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
makkie_messer said:
What is being suggested is a binary distribution of the QuickTime player for FreeBSD, just like the binary distribution Apple has already made available for Microsoft Windows. Port the QuickTime Player to FreeBSD.

....
Click to expand...
You miss a very important fact about the nature of UNIX, including FreeBSD. BSD is cross-platform. As such, software is distributed as source code or make files rather than binary code.
 
MisterMe said:
You miss a very important fact about the nature of UNIX, including FreeBSD. BSD is cross-platform. As such, software is distributed as source code or make files rather than binary code.
Click to expand...

Well, programs are distributed as source code just as it is for Linux or other platforms. In source code if it's allowed by the authors, in binary form if that's requested (or if someone gets around to building binary versions and "distributing" them)

There is DEFINITELY software for BSD that is distributed as binary-only. Any commercial app, for example.

No particular software vendor has to write cross-platform code, anyway. Just because I write code for BSD on PowerPC doesn't mean it's going to compile on Sparc or Intel without tweaks...
 
FreeBSD is the technology that Apple has utilized to make their commercial product. The fact that some people use it by itself is beside the point. It would be like saying car companies owe the inventor of the combustion engine and should repay him. The combustion engine is just a piece of technology other companies use in their product. It is the engine of cars, just like FreeBSD is the engine of OS X.

Apple also receives millions of hits per day to their website. They have one of the best places to find movie trailers, leading many Windows users there for that sole purpose. They don't need the hits of a few extra FreeBSD users.
 
Ripcord said:
Well, programs are distributed as source code just as it is for Linux or other platforms. In source code if it's allowed by the authors, in binary form if that's requested (or if someone gets around to building binary versions and "distributing" them)

There is DEFINITELY software for BSD that is distributed as binary-only. Any commercial app, for example.

No particular software vendor has to write cross-platform code, anyway. Just because I write code for BSD on PowerPC doesn't mean it's going to compile on Sparc or Intel without tweaks...
Click to expand...
Commercial application software for UNIX tends to be very expensive. At those prices, the vendor has the incentive to produce software for such a small market. QuickTime is system software, not application software. Non-Macintosh distributions require a substantial fraction of the MacOS to be ported to the target platform. That is a very costly endeavor. The only compensationn that Apple receives is $29 for the professional version of the QuickTime player from the few users who chose to pay it. Bottomline: It ain't gonna happen.
 
What good is market share if new users might buy your products?

iTunes was ported to Windows to sell iPods.

Quicktime player is free, but you get more with Quicktime Pro.

Would you also like Appleworks to be ported to FreeBSD?
I'm sure Apple will have the entire bsd community at their feet begging for Appleworks 8!

Bias aside, X-racer has more knowledge on this subject, but i do know that porting an application to another platform doesn't always increase marketshare.
 
ApeintheShell said:
Quicktime player is free, but you get more with Quicktime Pro.

Would you also like Appleworks to be ported to FreeBSD?
I'm sure Apple will have the entire bsd community at their feet begging for Appleworks 8!
Click to expand...

Quicktime actually exists to promote the Quicktime technology. Without a wide variety of Quicktime users, there'd be no motivation for content producers to buy Quicktime authoring products (like, but not limited to Quicktime Pro), Quicktime servers, license Quicktime technology, etc. Providing a free Quicktime player helps provide market share.

...Which actually is the best reason to port Quicktime player to BSD. Additional untapped marketshare. However, I think it would be an incredibly difficult sell inside Apple considering the resources required and potential payoff. BSD isn't a particularly feasible platform for a desktop-oriented app like this - it has an incredibly small user base outside of the computer room - only a very small portion of the already small BSD segment are desktop users who would even WANT a Quicktime player. But it's a chicken-and-egg problem - how do you get the app developers without users, how do you get users without the apps (Apple might know a thing or two about this).

Linux, on the other hand, is becoming a more and more attractive platform to develop for (however, though it's becoming more mature and more popular on the desktop, it's still an **incredible** kludge to develop desktop apps for). I'd expect to see a Linux version long before a BSD version. Of course, once a Linux version is done, the BSD port isn't too far of a cry (the really difficult stuff is the GUI handling stuff. At that point Linux and most BSD platforms are close enough that it's not nearly as big an investment to port)
 
You guys know there is an opensource project to make a quicktime compatible player for linux right? search on sourceforge.net
 
How many devoted FreeBSD users are there out there, anyway? I can't see there being a lot; I can't see a Quicktime Player for FreeBSD bringing droves of new people to the market.

Read my post above, if you missed it the first time around. That should set it straight.
 
How does this help apple? the apple version is not necessarily going to provide any better functionality than the open version. As much as i love apple products, look at Quicktime for Windows. you have to admit, its pretty crappy.
 
makkie_messer said:
Apple took Jordan Hubbard from "The FreeBSD Team" to develop for OS X.
Click to expand...

You really need to get your facts straight. Jordy went to Apple and said "I'd love to work on OS X, it's amazing." and Apple said "sure, here's a job, we'll pay you to work on the OSS portions of OS X and work with the FreeBSD community to help with information sharing". Jordy started falling in love with OS X from the first beta he got, and the love kept growing.

As for giving back to the community, I think Apple has given a great deal back, and gives back more all the time. You seem to have this idea that Apple stole all this stuff that the FreeBSD team wrote from scratch, well, alot of it got into FreeBSD because it came from BSDlite, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or even *cringe* Linux. Do you see the NetBSD people complaing that the FreeBSD team should port FreeBSD-ports project to NetBSD because they are using some NetBSD code? Do you see the OpenBSD folks complaining (ok, bad example, they always complain about something...). Oh wait, NFS/NIS, that was created by Sun, maybe FreeBSD people need to start porting all their stuff to Solaris...

As for the whole Quicktime issue, it won't happen. There are too many issues to deal with, including licensing rights. If enough FreeBSD users were willing to pay for Quicktime Pro to pay for it's development, I'm sure Apple would love to port it, and work out the licensing rights (easy to work them out when you can pay for it), but, most FreeBSD users who would be using Quicktime are cheap.

Brian
 
Powermaster said:
It would help apple to make a quicktime for freebsd hence the users would then be using a Apple Product.
Click to expand...

Why use an Apple product just because it is an Apple product? Apple makes Sherlock, I use Watson. Apple makes Safari, I use OmniWeb. Apple makes iPhoto, I use Curator. Apple makes Preview, I use Acrobat.

I use the product I like the most, not the product that Apple puts out.

On the other hand, I've been happy with TextEdit (and AppleWorks for some things), Mail, Address Book and iTunes. And I still use a Newton PDA.

It is cool that Apple makes some great products, but just because Apple makes a product doesn't make it the only choice or the best choice.
 
Well guys I don't know much on this subject, but the best codec out there seems to be 3vix. Just wanted to point that out. I know that it's not included with Quicktime but the newest version will play on QT 6 with out having to dowload the codec, isn't that cool. Please don't rip on me kinda clue less here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top