The Underscore Archives

> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:45:14 +0100
> From: Matt Kane <ascorbic at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [_] Apple fsck's Quicktime flash track playback
> To: underscore at under-score.org.uk
> Message-ID: <F597239A-5788-41F2-B4D0-DC50FCF00CB3 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> 
> > There are currently a lot of irritated content and 
> production types on
> > the QT lists crying foul over this.
> 
> So there were actually people who used this? I always assumed that  
> QT's Flash support was so limited as to be useless.


Well, it's always a version or 2 behind the current Flash Player but at
least it still works (unlike WMP's version from about 1999 !) I've not
used it either, personally - because as Oliver** would say, it's pants.

However I get the idea that people don't have as much control as they'd
like for advanced interactivity from QT, or that messing about with
wired sprites / QTVR it too much hassle. So that's probably where having
a fairly standard set of ways to cobble together interactivity come into
play, alongside wider video format support etc.

Of course, Apple probably are thinking "sod this for a game of catchup"
and simply can't be bothered to support Flash in QT any more. After all,
as you say it's an edge-case where they're not making any money. 

The worry I suppose is if everybody moves to Flash video while Apple
have [eventually] removed support from the player, QT becomes a player
which like Real Player is "so what ?" : Apple can can the QT project due
to "lack of interest" and spend all their money courting movie studios
to support iTunes video onto their proprietary (but profitable) hardware
devices.



** Please form an orderly queue.