QuickTime 3.0: the myths meet the media

Emedia Professional, April, 1998 by Jan Ozer

No one ever accused me of being an avid fan of Apple, and a recent conversation with an Apple representative about QuickTime 3.0 did little to change that. The rep was, in fact, one of QuickTime's original authors, so the discussion should have been quite informative, which it was, The annoying thing is, most of the information was misleading at best, dead wrong at worst.

What's true about QuickTime 3.0 is this: it has two components, a development architecture and a playback architecture. The playback architecture has been available in Windows for quite some time, but QuickTime 3.0 marks the first Windows version that has included development tools.

QuickTime is universally recognized as a stronger development architecture than its counterparts on the Windows side because of its richer lower-level services. For example, in Video for Windows, now DirectShow (via ActiveMovie), it's very difficult to write capture card drivers. That's why most of the original Windows DV (Firewire) cards have standalone capture applets while capture is integrated into programs like Adobe Premiere on the Mac.

Video for Windows also has somewhat quaint limitations like a 2GB file size limitation that Macintosh doesn't share. While this doesn't impact most multimedia developers, it's a pain for high-end editing systems primarily used for outputting to tape, which is why most high-end Avid and Media 100 systems are Macintosh-based.

QUICKTIME 3.0: FACT AND FICTION

OK, this is all very cool. Now we can do all that stuff on the Windows platform via QuickTime 3.0. And developers like miro and Truevision can support both the Windows and Macintosh platforms by supporting one low-level API rather than two.

Case closed, right? No such luck. The Apple representative didn't simply describe the wonders of the new Apple platform, he harped on alleged deficiencies in the Windows platform in a way that might have gotten by someone unfamiliar with the Windows tools. Not out-and-out lies, but some definite stretching of the truth.

Here's a sampling of the Apple rep's more contestable assertions, followed by the reality skirted therein:

Assertion: You can't add a bitmapped image to an editing timeline in Windows and preview the video without rendering the entire video.

Reality: Sure you can. Virtually any Windows editor will do the trick.

Assertion: There are no professional-quality video editing tools on the Windows platform.

Reality: I'll let you take this one up with Truevision (Targa 2000), Matrox, FAST, and DPS, and Adobe and inSync for that matter. I'm sure they think their systems are professional, and I'm sure the folks who spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy them to make their living think they're professional as well.

Assertion: Current tools on the Mac and future Windows tools based on QuickTime 3.0 have greater functionality than similar tools based on Video for Windows or DirectShow.

Reality: When I asked the Apple rep to point out features in the Mac version of Adobe Premiere that weren't in the Windows version, he said "yeah, well, while the feature set is similar, it was easier to program for QuickTime."

Assertion: The QuickTime format has over 50 percent market share in the streaming video market.

Reality: While all QuickTime files stream, or start to play as soon as the first frame hits the remote client, only a tiny percentage are compressed enough to play through to the end without stopping. QuickTime isn't even on the radar screen when it comes to true streaming video, but if you took the company's statement at face value, you'd have them leading the market.

WHY BOTHER?

Apple's strategy has two consequences, both bad. First is that it irritates the reporter, and second, is that it totally eliminates the Apple representative's credibility. Another reporter less conversant in video technologies would have reported "QT 3.0 editors first to preview bitmaps on the Windows platform" or "QT 3.0 enables the first professional quality video development tools on the Windows platform" or "Apple dominates streaming video market." All direct quotes, all very, very wrong.

What's really sad is that this approach hides QuickTime's true benefits. For example, rather than state that Windows tools can't preview bitmaps without rendering, point out that QuickTime has the ability to display a bitmap for several seconds, even if it's embedded in a 30fps MOV file. The Windows approach is to convert the bitmap into a 30fps video file, which is much less efficient.

Instead of claiming 50 percent market share in the streaming video market, point out that QuickTime's structure is well-suited for downloading and playing videos, which is useful when you care more about quality than instantaneous access. Rather than claim that Mac tools have features that Windows tools don't have, state the development cycles under QuickTime 3.0 are shorter.

Asked whether QuickTime's relative lack of success on the Web will hurt their desktop success, Apple trotted out their 50 percent market share statistics. Busted on the codec issue, they say, well, we have some low-bandwidth support, and think that 50 percent share is a great place to start.