Apple dropping codec support…repercussions

[Shawn Miller]

[Tod Hopkins] “[Shawn Miller] “What do you mean? Are you saying that MS doesn’t develop it’s own codecs, or that they don’t include third party codecs with Windows?”

Neither, really. I’m saying that Microsoft has not considered extensive video codec support a significant feature of Windows until very recently. Microsoft does write some codecs and does support some in the base OS, but this support has never been extensive.”

You don’t think of VC1 or DirectX as extensive video CODEC support? How could the most popular gaming and multimedia platform not have video and audio support as an integral part of the OS? They even helped develop the H.26x standard…

Shawn

[Dom Silverio]

[Tod Hopkins] ” Apple has simply decided they don’t want to do this work anymore, but they are not stopping others from doing it.”

AFAIK, a lot of the codecs they are “retiring” were never written by Apple, thus that work was never on Apple. What they are actually doing is not allowing THIRD party codecs to be installed via AVFramework without their approval (no approval has been given to anyone AFAIK). Writing the code for your codec only satisfies specific applications you have control over. The previous QT platform allowed you to write a codec for the QT engine itself allowing any software to access the same codec.

[Brett Sherman]

[Andrew Kimery] ”
With that being said though, archiving for data doesn’t really exist like it does for physical media. Archiving for data is really a perpetual migration of data to contemporary codecs/formats and storage mediums so that it remains accessible. This is why when one does their initial ingest one shouldn’t use a heavily compressed codec like low bit rate H.264 because eventually that crap H.264 file will have to be transcoded into another codec for compatibility. And then another, and then another, and then another for decades or even centuries (assuming humanity makes it that long).”

This is true. But to an OS, high bandwidth H.264 is identical to low bandwidth H.264. Smart money is on using a non-propietary high bandwidth format. Many cameras these days shoot on a high bandwidth variation of H.264. H.265 is coming soon.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Brett Sherman] “Many cameras these days shoot on a high bandwidth variation of H.264. H.265 is coming soon.”

I was thinking more along the lines of ingesting tape-based media or film.

[Tod Hopkins]

[Shawn Miller] “You don’t think of VC1 or DirectX as extensive video CODEC support? How could the most popular gaming and multimedia platform not have video and audio support as an integral part of the OS? They even helped develop the H.26x standard…”

Extensive? Not at all. And certainly not historically. First, DirectX was built for gaming because MS is a gaming platform and it is neither a video codec nor a file standard. It provides api support for third parties, not direct user support. VC1 and h.264 are standards that Microsoft championed but did not create, and only after WMV failed to get widespread acceptance.

I’m not trying to argue that Windows can’t do video or that the Mac OS is inherently better. I’m simply arguing that the Mac OS has historically provided more direct support for video professionals and video codecs than Windows. This is still true today, and even after the “conversion”, I suspect it will continue to be true because video professionals matter to Apple.

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
Washington, DC

[Tod Hopkins]

[Dom Silverio] “What they are actually doing is not allowing THIRD party codecs to be installed via AVFramework without their approval (no approval has been given to anyone AFAIK).”

Apple is a closed environment, and they are trending towards being more closed. I don’t love it and I think Cook is heading in the wrong direction, but it isn’t a change. AVFramework exists to support media. If it doesn’t support media better than DirectX, I will be shocked. AVFramework exists for media professionals. DirectX is for games.

Did you see the list of Mac Pro software “partners” at WWDC? It was a who’s who of top end video software companies. How many of those companies will stay friendly if Apple denies them access to AVFramework?

We are in a transition. Apple will try to exercise control. They always do. But they introduced the Mac Pro because their “media” image has slipped badly. The Mac Pro is 100% for the high-end media market. It is useless without deep support for media in the Mac OS.

I won’t be buying a Mac Pro any time soon, but it cheered me up more than anything Apple has done in several years because it means Apple wants us back.

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
Washington, DC

[Shawn Miller]

[Tod Hopkins] “Extensive? Not at all. And certainly not historically. First, DirectX was built for gaming because MS is a gaming platform and it is neither a video codec nor a file standard. It provides api support for third parties, not direct user support”

DirectX provides extensive support for a wide variety of multimedia applications on the Windows platform… not just for third parties and not just for games. I have no idea what you mean by “direct user support”.

[Tod Hopkins] ” VC1 and h.264 are standards that Microsoft championed but did not create, and only after WMV failed to get widespread acceptance. “

Microsoft created VC1 (which is a CODEC) and helped to develop h.26x… which I believe I said…

Shawn

[Tod Hopkins]

I’m not slamming Microsoft or DirectX. I like both. I’m simply making the case (maybe poorly) that Apple has historically provided more comprehensive support for video professionals than Microsoft. I’m kind of surprised I would have to provide evidence as it seems self-evident to me. For the first decade of my career, one bought PCs to do the office work and Macs to do video. Avid did not run on Windows.

Quicktime and DirectX are two different technologies with different intent. DirectX is a great technology which made modern video games possible but it’s very different from Quicktime.

I must say that giving Microsoft credit for h.264 just makes me ill. VC-1 exists because Microsoft wanted the future of video to be based on their proprietary WMV foundation and not MPEG. They fought that battle hard. They forced VC-1 into the Blu-ray spec. In the end, they reluctantly supported h.264 because they really had no choice.

Cheers,
tod

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
Washington, DC

[Shawn Miller]

[Tod Hopkins] ” I’m simply making the case (maybe poorly) that Apple has historically provided more comprehensive support for video professionals than Microsoft. “

If you’re talking about video editors and others who we typically think of as “video professionals”, then you’re probably right – but for multimedia, web, streaming and others who work with audio and video for a living but aren’t traditional post professionals, then no. My perspective comes from having worked in a few of these areas. When I needed solid screen capture CODECS, video tools that allowed me to write script commands into video files, access video/audio file headers etc, all I needed were Microsoft’s video tools. Their focus (in the 90’s and 2000’s) was on compression, compression tools and everything you could do with compressed media. Now, they’re much more into providing tools for developers (AR, VR, etc.), and not people on the post side, who I think you’re talking about.

[Tod Hopkins] “Quicktime and DirectX are two different technologies with different intent. DirectX is a great technology which made modern video games possible but it’s very different from Quicktime. “

Right… and I never compared the two. They’re different things for different kinds of people who create media…

[Tod Hopkins] “I must say that giving Microsoft credit for h.264 just makes me ill. VC-1 exists because Microsoft wanted the future of video to be based on their proprietary WMV foundation and not MPEG. “

Again, I’m not giving Microsoft full credit for creating h.26x – but I know they contributed engineering resources to the effort, as did Apple and a few notable others. And you’re actually pretty off base about Microsoft’s desire to supplant MPEG-X with .wmv. They fought hard in areas where MPEG competed with VC1 (HDDVD vs Blu-Ray), but they are also pretty strong advocates for cross platform video standards (licensing tech to the FFMPEG project). BTW, have you ever heard of Gary J. Sullivan? Might make for an interesting read. ☺

Shawn

[Tod Hopkins]

[Shawn Miller] “If you’re talking about video editors and others who we typically think of as “video professionals”, then you’re probably right – but for multimedia, web, streaming and others who work with audio and video for a living but aren’t traditional post professionals, then no.”

It’s great to get outside one’s box every now and then! That’s exactly right. I am definitely speaking from the point of view of a post-production professional. From a general multi-media point-of-view, I agree that the balance has shifted fairly dramatically towards Windows in the past decade as traditional video post and computer applications merged and Apple’s model shifted more towards consumers and away from professionals.

And now Linux. My current production is video delivered via a Unity application running on Linux.

Cheers,
tod

Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
Washington, DC