Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Open Source VLC Media Player Coming To iPad

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the might-make-'em-temptinger dept.

Media (Apple) 232

Stoobalou writes "The people behind VLC, quite probably the most useful media player available right now, have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software police. VLC — which is rightfully famous for having a go at playing just about any kind of audio or video file you care to throw at it — should appear some time next week, if it makes it through the often unfathomable approval process implemented by Apple. The Open Source Video Lan Client has been tweaked to run on the iPod by software developer Applidium."

cancel ×

232 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GPL Violation? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525916)

I was under the impression you couldn't release the full source code of an iOS app without open-sourcing the iOS libraries.

Re:GPL Violation? (3, Informative)

Wumpus (9548) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525962)

You can release the source code. You just can't distribute the binary, since you can't satisfy the conditions of the GPL and of the statically linked platform libraries.

Although there is an exception in the GPL to allow linking to libraries that are part of the OS, or are normally distributed with it. Things like the standard C runtime library fall under that. Maybe this applies here.

Re:GPL Violation? (3, Insightful)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526098)

Heh, anyone who's been around long enough should be very aware of those exception clauses. The GPL, Emacs, and GCC all predate glibc and Linux by a lot. Back in the day when I wanted to run GPLed software, I had to run it on a SunOS (the name "Solaris" hadn't been invented yet) or Ultrix or AOS system using the vendor's C library (and often compiler). The GPL does not "infect" the whole "stack" from kernel to system libraries to universally included frameworks.

Re:GPL Violation? (3, Funny)

Myopic (18616) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526382)

Awesome! How many bytes of RAM did you have on your abacus?

(joke only! mad respect!)

situation similar to Wesnoth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526434)

http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/ [lwn.net]

July 21, 2010

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Re:GPL Violation? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33525988)

What? You mean like how I can't release a windows app as GPL without open sourcing Windows?

Re:GPL Violation? (0, Offtopic)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526090)

If Windows required the binary to have DRM, maybe....

Re:GPL Violation? (2, Informative)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526034)

To add to what others have already mentioned, I'll point out that VLC is very specifically GPLv2, not GPLv3. Version 2 did not have the "anti TiVoization" stuff that version 3 has. The restrictions on what you can do really are different.

Re:GPL Violation? (-1, Flamebait)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526278)

OK. Maybe I've said this a little bit backwards. To put your app in the app store, you have to agree not to release your source code. That's not GPL violation, but iTunes Developer Agreement violation. As far as I know, Applidium haven't actually released the source code for this modification under GPL yet. Apple might be violating the GPL if they distributed it without providing the source code themselves, to. Apple rejected Gnu GO likely for this reason, and the FSF also say that Apple's app store is incompatible with the GPL, though I don't remember why.

Re:GPL Violation? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526428)

You are wrong. I heard that was true in the beginning, but not for a long time. There was a discussion about GPL on the iPhone here on slashdot before, search for "xpilot", and the consensus was that there are no problems with releasing a GPL app for it. Anyway xpilot is on the Appstore, is GPL and the source code is available.
Applidium doesn't have to release the source before they distribute the app, so you can get worked up about the little details once that happens. I assume that there is going to be the usual round of complaints about minor things that always happens here when a GPL app is released on a controlled platform. See xpilot, iD games (with DosBox) on Steam, etc.

Re:GPL Violation? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526446)

backwards? More like 100% wrong. Apple has no such requirements. If you own the source code, you can do whatever you want with it, including licensing it under multiple licenses. The individual who ported GNU Go to the iPhone did not own the source code and the FSF has an opinion on what exactly can (and can't) be done with their source code.

Re:GPL Violation? (4, Informative)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526460)

I'm not sure you've read the developer agreement closely enough. You're allowed to do open source, explicitly. Download the latest version of the agreement right now, and look at section 3.3.20. Right there it says essentially "using FOSS is completely okay, as long as you can follow all the rules in this document and all the rules in the applicable FOSS license at the same time".

The FSF certainly says that the app store is incompatible with the GPL. They also say people should never use GPLv2, just GPLv3. The GPLv3 has an anti-TiVoization clause. Heck, read it in the FSF's own words right here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html [gnu.org]

Focus on the sixth paragraph. That makes the GPLv3 incompatible with the App Store (or with appliances like the TiVo) in ways that simply do not apply to the GPLv2.

(I researched this a bunch while kicking around the idea of taking the last version of Emacs that was under GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 and porting that to the iPad. I ultimately decided against it, but not for reasons of license compatibility.)

Re:GPL Violation? (2, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526540)

OK. Maybe I've said this a little bit backwards. To put your app in the app store, you have to agree not to release your source code. That's not GPL violation, but iTunes Developer Agreement violation. As far as I know, Applidium haven't actually released the source code for this modification under GPL yet. Apple might be violating the GPL if they distributed it without providing the source code themselves, to. Apple rejected Gnu GO likely for this reason, and the FSF also say that Apple's app store is incompatible with the GPL, though I don't remember why.

No, open-source apps have been in the App Store for a long while now. I think it was a yeaf after the App Store opened up that Apple relaxed the policies regarding licensing. Thus, open source apps are allowed, provided:

1) You are allowed to distribute it
2) You follow all the requirements of the original license
3) You do not use it in any way that would force Apple's software to be open-sourced.

Most of the open-source stuff I see is that there's a link in the app description to the web site of the developer, and there is the source code for the app. In a more ideal world, there would be a way for the tools to bundle in the source code into the IPA file, so downloading the app downloads the source code as well. (An IPA file is just a regular ZIP file). Knowing the format, iTunes can actually strip out the source code so you're not stuck transfering useless stuff to your device.

GNU Go was a different problem. Someone ported it to iOS, but didn't release source. FSF alerted Apple to the license violation, and Apple removed the app for violating the license and developer agreement.

The App Store is a tricky place. The FSF holds the position it's GPL incompatible because it's Apple that's distributing the software, not the developer. Apple is maintaining their position on the App Store is it's a marketplace, i.e., a store, and while it's facilitating transactions between customer and developer, and it's hosting the content on behalf of the developer. (The difference is subtle - say you provide a binary of a GPL program. You upload the binary onto your webhost. Is your webhost now distributing the binary (which means they need to do the distribution of source and 3 year requirement), or just hosting hte binary (and you the developer are responsible for pointing to the source).

Re:GPL Violation? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526108)

I'm trying to figure out why they haven't released the code yet. It is touted as "open source", why not let those of us that are iPhone Developers install it today, instead of waiting for Apple to approve it?

When Firefox Home was being developed, they released the code so I was able to use it weeks (or months) before it was submitted and available on the AppStore.

Re:GPL Violation? (4, Insightful)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526230)

Waiting until Apple can give feedback on it, as long as the wait is not too long, is a way to demonstrate to Apple that you're acting in good faith and attempting to comply with their policies and processes. It shows that if Apple finds a minor fault with the app and requests something be changed, they're willing to wait to incorporate those changes before letting non-compliant versions get "out into the wild".

The wait may not be necessary, but it's certainly a decent idea for someone who wants to work with Apple instead of adopting a "fight the power!" attitude. It's a show of respect. And the gesture probably does appreciably increase the odds that it'll get approved.

Re:GPL Violation? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33527080)

Apple users are also big fans of ANAL violations, especially when it's their own that is being violated, either metaphorically by Steve Jobs or physically by their huge nigger lovers.

Quicktime? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525938)

As VLC also plays Quicktime formats, it'll be interesting to see if Apple allows a competitor.

Re:Quicktime? (2, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525978)

Who said they included that functionality? I assume there are QuickTime API calls on iPad already, they can just use those... VLC for PC includes QuickTime codecs for PCs since who knows if the users are going to have QuickTime installed (and AFAIK there's no Linux QuickTime). Wouldn't have that problem on the iPad, right?

Re:Quicktime? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527154)

VLC for PC includes QuickTime codecs for PCs since Apple’s QuickTime codecs for PCs suck.

FTFY.

And when I say they suck, I mean they are buggy and full of security holes.

Re:Quicktime? (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526066)

They allowed the Opera Mini browser, even though it directly competes with (and is ~5 times faster than) Apple's Safari browser. So I'm betting Apple will approve VLC too. - If they do reject it the reason will be something else - like ability to hack into iPad internals (same reason the C64emultator was rejected from iStore) rather than because of fear of competition.

offtopic:

Why isn't SeaMonkey listed on the EU's browser choice screen? I like its old Netscape style. :-|

Re:Quicktime? (2, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526162)

The answer to your offtopic question is that they include one browser from each vendor, and firefox is the offering they include form the Mozilla Foundation.

Re:Quicktime? (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526308)

But seamonkey is no longer part of Mozilla. They are a separate company called SeaMonkey Council, and should be allowed to submit their own product to the EU. ----- And if the argument is: "FF and SM use the same mozilla base," that is not valid either. There are two Webkit browsers on the EU ballot.

Back to topic:

I don't expect Apple to reject VLC. If they do it will make them look like hypocrites.

.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526622)

But seamonkey is no longer part of Mozilla. They are a separate company called SeaMonkey Council, and should be allowed to submit their own product to the EU. ----- And if the argument is: "FF and SM use the same mozilla base," that is not valid either. There are two Webkit browsers on the EU ballot.

"SeaMonkey and the SeaMonkey logo are registered trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation."

So, it's led by a different group... but is still a product of the Mozilla Foundation according to its own website.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526298)

c64emulator was rejected because it can run interpreted code, not because of low-level access to iPad hardware.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526486)

So I'm betting Apple will approve VLC too. - If they do reject it the reason will be something else - like ...

... the ability to play Flash?

Re:Quicktime? (1, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526696)

VLC can *display* Flash videos, it can't *run* Flash videos. That's still handled by Adobe software, much in the same way that Media Player Classic (the original, anyhow) doesn't decode XviD videos; it extracts the video data from the file, passes it on to the codec, lets the codec decode it, and then displays the result.

Opera Mini doesn't compete (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526778)

"They allowed the Opera Mini browser, even though it directly competes with (and is ~5 times faster than) Apple's Safari"

No, it doesn't compete. It works in a fundamentally different manner, with a different user experience. Displaying a pre-rendered bitmap obtained from a cloud server is not the same as fetching web data and rendering the page on-device; as such, there is much it cannot do "live".

Re:Quicktime? (2, Informative)

samkass (174571) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526236)

Now that Apple publishes their app acceptance criteria, we can look this one up:

9.1 Apps that do not use the MediaPlayer framework to access media in the Music Library will be rejected

Oh well.

Re:Quicktime? (2, Insightful)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526280)

This just means VLC cannot play music form the music library. music outside the music library is no problem....
But then, if apple thinks different you still have a problem, not apple.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526414)

Unless they changed this with iphone os 4 (the three letter IOS will always apply to Cisco devices in my mind regardless of capitalization) there is no file system access on the iphone. If VLC can't access the library due to Apple restrictions you would have to get music/videos on the phone through VLC itself (since the sandboxing prevents it from accessing other apps data).

Re:Quicktime? (2, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526752)

iTunes allows you to copy arbitrary data to your iDevice for a specific application. I believe this is how some eBook readers get their content from PCs.

Besides, this doesn't really matter anyhow; the primary reason to use VLC is to play media that the existing iPod software won't play. If the iPod software won't play it, then iTunes won't let you upload it to the iDevice in the first place.

In other words, I couldn't put an MKV file in my media library even if Apple didn't have this restriction, for technical reasons.

Anyhow, the MediaPlayer framework lets you pass in raw data; there's no particular reason why VLC couldn't pass an h.264 video stream extracted from an MKV file to the MediaPlayer framework. The only issue would be playing content that doesn't adhere to the standards supported by the hardware.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527138)

Interesting, they must have added that since I had a 3gs. Guess I learned something today.

You can load app-specific content on the iPad (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526826)

Unless they changed this with iphone os 4 (the three letter IOS will always apply to Cisco devices in my mind regardless of capitalization) there is no file system access on the iphone. If VLC can't access the library due to Apple restrictions you would have to get music/videos on the phone through VLC itself (since the sandboxing prevents it from accessing other apps data).

Wrong. Here's how I got books into Stanza [lexcycle.com] on my iPad (which I prefer to iBooks for reading my pdfs). Sure it's sub-optimal, but if I can play my mkv and other non-apple content, I'll be happy as a clam.

Re:Quicktime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33527018)

(the three letter IOS will always apply to Cisco devices in my mind regardless of capitalization)

Why do you nerds get so worked up over stupid shit like this? Cisco gave them a license to use the iOS name so if they don't care why do you?

Re:Quicktime? (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527124)

You act like I'm angry about it, which is certainly not the case. When I hear someone say IOS (or iOS or ios, they all sound the same spoken) the first thing that comes to mind is Cisco IOS. Since I don't naturally associate it with Apple's OS I just call it iphone OS to remove the ambiguity. I noted what I did in parentheses because I figured the grammar/spelling nazi's would pounce on it otherwise.

Re:Quicktime? (1)

machxor (1226486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526830)

I dunno, it's pretty vague (most of the guidelines are).

Why say "media" if it only applies to music?

What does "access" mean? Open a stream to and then decode in your application? Or actually decode through the MediaPlayer framework (ie: no non-Apple supplied codecs).

Overall reading through those guidelines were a waste of time for me. Most of them were common sense and the rest were so vague and subjective (I think that was the intention though).

Re:Quicktime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526954)

Not to mention iTunes.

Granted, iTunes isn't much competition for VLC.

As an aside, are there any plans to port VLC to the iPhone? That would make the iPhone actually usable.

Android (1)

fenring (1582541) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525956)

I was hoping for VLC for Android first, but I guess I could be happy for the IPhone owners.

Re:Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526300)

The RockPlayer app for Android has played every movie format I've tried it with so far, fwiw.

Re:Android (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526392)

OT:
I'm holding out for an Android phone with a flash *and* picture quality as good as an iPhone. The Samsung Galaxy S is the closest but no flash and no image stabilization. VLC would be a must it it existed but I'll setting for a phone/MP3/Camera for now. I'm sick of nursing multiple batteries/chargers and SD cards.

I do not care to join the growing iPhone penile colony.

Re:Android (5, Funny)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526524)

OT:
I'm holding out for an Android phone with a flash *and* picture quality as good as an iPhone. The Samsung Galaxy S is the closest but no flash and no image stabilization. VLC would be a must it it existed but I'll setting for a phone/MP3/Camera for now. I'm sick of nursing multiple batteries/chargers and SD cards.

I do not care to join the growing iPhone penile colony.

Are you ejaculating that Apple has erected a large user base of which you do not want to be a member?

Re:Android (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526850)

penal vs. penile: Damn you spellcheck!

I do not care or have time for the "Jail-breaking Game" just to get apps that I want. (e.g. tethering anyone?!)

BTW: Motorola is out with *there* androids, too. They want to create their own MotorolAndroid penal colony.

Re:Android (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526994)

I knew you meant penal, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. :) Although there is quite a large penile element to all-male (such as Slashdot) penal colonies...so you might not have been too far off the mark. heh heh.

Re:Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526582)

I thought only the captivate lacked a led flash. It does have image stabilization though. ( but the pictures pretty much suck). The Sony Erickson Xperia X10 has a pretty decent camera ... but Android 1.6. Supposedly that will be updated soon to 2.1 at least in Europe.

Re:Android (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526882)

If operator would stop trying to control every f'n'thing things would be so much simpler.

It will probably fail. (0)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525964)

This is plain as day, duplication of functionality.

Unless a Opera mini like miracle occurs.

Re:It will probably fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526082)

Of course, the built-in player doesn't have the "functionality" to play the same number of formats, but Apple won't call attention to that. VLC is committing the cardinal sin of competing with one of Apple's own apps; can't have that.

Custom mediaplayer on the appstore? (4, Interesting)

TheGodxxxx (1752138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526040)

I was actually under the impression that u could not release a media player that is not based on the stock one at the appstore because it would be count as replacing standard functionality. Has this changed or am I missinformed at all? Having VLC on iOS could be a dealbreaker for many people who don't buy a iPhone because of the lack of divx/xvid compatiblity.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526076)

there's a divx/xvid player already on the store. it's shit, but it was approved

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/id384098375?mt=8 [apple.com]

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore? (0, Troll)

uncholowapo (1666661) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526292)

The fact that it is shit is probably why it was approved...

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526518)

With a device like the iPad, hardware acceleration of video play back is simply not an option. It's absolutely necessary.

If you can't just "feed it to the GPU" then what you can do is going to be very limited.

I would be surprised if VLC can do much beyond offer an alternative UI to browse QT files.

Potential rejection reason (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526708)

A primary reason for using, unto requiring, hardware video playback is power consumption. Early in the iPad's release someone noted that the reason it could handle not just an 11-hour on time, but an 11-hour video playback time, was that video was routed thru a very efficient hardware video decoder. Without doing so, battery life would be stunted to way below the near-all-day on time.

This leads to the extrapolation to and beyond the "it's absolutely necessary" observation.

From the just-released submission guidelines:

13.2 Apps that rapidly drain the device's battery or generate excessive heat will be rejected

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore? (1, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526810)

The iPad has a pretty capable processor. It can probably handle pretty much anything SD entirely in software, possibly even some 720p content with a very well written decoder.

Regardless, the hardware support doesn't care about the container format, so there's nothing stopping VLC from playing an MKV file with hardware acceleration (for video, at least), so long as the h.264 stream in the MKV container is compliant with the decoding restrictions. I imagine that it could then use overlays to display subtitles...

This would finally enable easy fansub playback on the iPhone.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore? (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526166)

Currently there's yxplayer which works ok and another one (can't remember the name) doesn't work very well. I'd love to have VLC!!

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526886)

There's no reason for Apple to ever add DivX/Xvid compatibility to their products because there's no legal DivX/Xvid files anywhere. And if you're talking about CC or open licensed material, the authors can make standard H264 files available as well.

And don't give me that "H264 requires licensing" bullshit, because DivX/Xvid uses MPEG-4.

I missed something (-1, Troll)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526046)

Maybe I missed something buy why is there an approval process for stuff you're installing on an Ipad, I thought it was just a tablet PC? From the article it seems more like a giant Iphone though, but with out the talking. Shouldn't you beable to install what ever you want on a tablet computer?

You missed something (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526088)

The iPad is just a large iPhone that can't make calls. It is not a general purpose computer. It runs the same general kind of CPU architecture as the iPhone (ARM) and uses the same OS. So it is a cut down, embedded type of device. Apps have to come from the Apple Store and so on.

Re:You missed something (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526184)

The iPad is just a large iPhone that can't make calls. .

ipod touch?

Re:You missed something (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526322)

For the regular version sure, but there still hasn't been a 3g iPod Touch that had net access without voice service.

Re:You missed something (1)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526360)

Both the iPad and iPod touch can make calls via wifi (or via iPad 3g) using SIP compatible VOIP clients, to the best of my knowledge, (I've never used these apple products) Here's a nice review of iOS clients [nerdvittles.com] , and from a really neat site with its own tricked-out user friendly Asterisk PBX distribution called PBX-in-a-flash.

Re:I missed something (1)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526094)

The approval process is for making the application available on the AppStore, not for installing it on a machine. Yet if you want anyone to have the application on their machine, either they need to have a valid developer license and be able to compile the source themselves, or you have to get it on the AppStore, which in the end needs apple's approval.

Re:I missed something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526110)

Maybe I missed something buy why is there an approval process for stuff you're installing on an Ipad, I thought it was just a tablet PC?

Yeah, you missed the part where it's not.

Re:I missed something (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526254)

From the article it seems more like a giant Iphone though, but with out the talking.

That's the iPad in a nutshell.

Shouldn't you beable to install what ever you want on a tablet computer?

Yes you should, but Steve objects to it so it doesn't happen. Plenty of reasons for and against it, but as far as I'm aware you can only install apps through the marketplace. I'd much prefer an android style system, they control the marketplace and keep it a nice and safe environment, with the option (with plenty of warnings of the risks) to install things through other means. They get their walled garden, I get a gadget I'd actually pay for.

There never seems to be a happy medium. The ability to install what I want on android is awesome, but their marketplace could do with a bit more filtering and checking. The safe marketplace on iPhone is awesome, but sometimes I want to something better that they won't let through.

Re:I missed something (0, Redundant)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527016)

Yes you should, but Steve objects to it so it doesn't happen. Plenty of reasons for and against it, but as far as I'm aware you can only install apps through the marketplace.

You can install pretty much any app you want on it if you jailbreak it.

Re:I missed something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526490)

Parent has either been hiding under a rock since the ipad was announced or is (more likely) well skilled in the art of trolling.

Yawn... (-1, Troll)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526116)

Wake me up when they have ported GOM player... The media player that not only recognizes just about every format, but can actually play them back efficiently without hours of installing extra codecs and tweaking archaic settings. VLC is nice simply because it's open source. Take away that requirement, and you can find much better, equally free-to-license media players out there.

I will say it using the Ballmer style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526132)

Streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming. I wish this VLC based app can stream from iMacs and SMB PCs as well as iTunes libraries and supporting .srt and .sub from streamed sources.

Re:I will say it using the Ballmer style (1)

programmerar (915654) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526932)

Streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming. I wish this VLC based app can stream from iMacs and SMB PCs as well as iTunes libraries and supporting .srt and .sub from streamed sources.

Plex can do this. An excellent application i use on OSX. The media server can be any computer, and the it streams the entire media library to computers and iOs devices.

Check it out: Plex [plexapp.com]

summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526144)



In my day, we differentiated between the iPad and the iPod. Apparently in this article, the author considers them one and the same.

Seth

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad (0, Troll)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526208)

what's the difference between and ipod touch and an ipad other than size and a little performance maybe?

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526314)

Purpose.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad (4, Informative)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526332)

For a start: user interface guidelines (which really can make the difference between app approval and rejection), and also OS infrastructure and frameworks (the iPad can support popups/overlays that the iPhone and iPod Touch can't -- Apple added those API calls to the iPad only, because the iPad display is large enough for that sort of thing to make sense).

For another: the iPad can actually act as a USB host (though you need a physical adapter to do it, the circuitry is in there), letting you use stuff like USB keyboards (and a USB bar code scanner -- I've used one myself), and no other iOS device has the necessary hardware at this time.

It's popular to say "it's just a big iPod Touch", and there are elements of truth to that, but it's not really completely accurate.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526614)

The user interface guidelines are artificial restrictions put in place by apple because the iphone and ipod touch screens are smaller. The API calls missing from those devices are also because of screen size, both of which still make sense when saying it's a big ipod touch. The only non size-related difference as pointed out in your post then would be the USB host circuitry.

So effectively the ipad is an oversized ipod touch with USB host capability.*

*Adapter required

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526564)

Difference there is not. Both are computers. Apple machinates to not allow you to run any program you like on the machine you own, and people indolently approve of this.

Also must mention the words ni and peng.

Thankyou.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526836)

For one thing, they have segregated app stores, so an iPad app won't show up for download on your iPod unless it's a hybrid app.

Woo! (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526176)


I will send my left nut to Steve Jobs if this gets approved.

Note to Apple: If a cooler appears on your loading dock and it has the shipping info missing please open it. If it contains dry ice and a zip-lock bag holding what appears to be a bloody walnut, please expedite it to Mr. Jobs.

Thank you.

Re:Woo! (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526316)

LOL! You made day.

Re:Woo! (0, Troll)

seizurebattlerobot (265408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526498)

Yes, let's all thank Apple for being gracious enough to allow us to run an application of our choice on our hardware.

Once network neutrality is completely dead and website->customer ISP payments are common, Apple will probably use their position to operate another toll booth as the first hardware vendor to benefit from a non-neutral internet. Can we look forward to petitioning Apple to pretty, pretty please add our favorite website to their whitelist, as well?

This practice sickens me. Enjoy your pretty noose!

Re:Woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526776)

Apple will probably use their position to operate another toll booth as the first hardware vendor to benefit from a non-neutral internet.

I think you're thinking of Google, as they're the mobile vendor currently pushing hardest on the legislature to end net neutrality.

Re:Woo! (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526918)

yxplayer works fairly well - prepare your right nut!

Re:Woo! (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526980)


yxplayer works fairly well - prepare your right nut!

Too late, I shipped my right nut to Apple in 1983 when they released the Apple IIe with lower case capability! .
In hindsight, that may have been a bit extreme.

Re:Woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526978)

oblig. "you're not using it, so why not" joke

Legality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526232)

What about uncertain legality issues of some of the codecs in the US?

It is for iPad... not iPod (nor iPhone). (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526234)

RTFOA:
http://applidium.com/en/news/vlc_media_player_available_for_the_ipad

Why I think it will be rejected (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526404)

It will contain code from various GPL projects and the holes in these could be exploited to jailbreak the phone.

Of course I could be wrong. there are alternate web browsers on the iPhone now so the "duplication" of built in features isn't a valid argument.

Re:Why I think it will be rejected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526800)

If they approve this, people might watch videos encoded with Theora or VP8. Can't have that. Everything must be H.264.

Re:Why I think it will be rejected (1)

EmperorPsiblade (1376261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526920)

All apps are run in a sandbox. Unless there is some major privilege escalation exploit that also escapes the sandbox, this is extremely unlikely. I haven't heard of it ever happening in the large number of apps published so far.

file management? (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526628)

I guess I could backdoor VLC compatible video files via dropbox, but how do they recommend to get non-standard (for iPad / iPhone) video on there by default? 2 steps that involve tedious uploads doesn't sound great to me.

VLC is crap. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526740)

I've managed to start using gstreamer-based Totem trying to play shit through VLC with bad luck (it crashes, or can't play video with sound if you attempt to seek), having had no luck with mplayer. Then I went back with Xine. Xine handles just about anything correctly, even if it's horribly corrupted; VLC doesn't handle anything with any sort of oddness correctly, and gstreamer seems halfway there.

Re:VLC is crap. (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526986)

Could it be that the version of VLC is not completely compatible with the version of the OS you are running? I think it is quite specific in that regard. The VLC people make older versions of the software available on their site for those of use that are not running the latest OS. Just a suggestion.

until then: Oplayer (1)

neurocutie (677249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526758)

I really hope that Apple gives a go for VLC for the iPad...
There is another option that *has* already been approved that is not a bad choice at all for playing movies, etc. Its Oplayer from olimsoft and is available now on iTunes. One of its problems apparently is that Apple has locked down the access to the hardware accelerating decoding present in the iPad, so Oplayer has to do it via software -- slower and therefore less smooth playback -- I hope VLC doesn't have this problem but I am guessing that Apple won't approve any 3rd app of that sort... (boo...)

The other issue that I'd personally want both Oplayer and VLC to be able to do is to stream from FTP or Samba servers. Right now Oplayer can stream from HTTP but can only d/l from FTP or Samba... not bad but it means waiting for the d/l to finish rather than just watching the vid as it comes across.

iPod? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526896)

"The Open Source Video Lan Client has been tweaked to run on the iPod by software developer Applidium." Wow! I'll probably never have an iPad, but VLC will be really handy on my iPod.

More Bias Please (1, Troll)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526900)

Could we please try to insert more anti-Apple bias in our article summaries please. I find Slashdot entirely too soft on Apple lately and would like to see it come to an end. We need to be harsher against them, dammit! Rather than "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software police" could we please instead use "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software Nazis." I mean, if we're going to broadcast an overwhelming bias against Apple in the article summaries (as opposed to just keeping them to the comments - I mean, who bothers to read the comments, after all), we might as well Godwin it at the same time, right?

sigh...

Re:More Bias Please (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527104)

If Apple doesn't want people to talk about their software police, maybe they shouldn't have software police. :)

I mean, hell, not America, but I've heard there are countries where people actually feel like police are there to protect and help them. Just as Apple fans presumably feel about the policing of apps in the app store. "Police" doesn't inherently imply "police state".

Re:More Bias Please (0, Troll)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527148)

Does anyone talk about the Google police? What's that? You didn't know that apps also have to pass Google approval for inclusion in their Android market? Funny how nobody talks about that _even though Google has not approved apps (plural)._ It's not like people are just posting anti-Apple comments and ignoring other companies doing the exact same thing, in the exact same market.

Yeah.

Ogg for IPod to good to be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526946)

I don't see this happening, it would be to much of a dream come true to be able to load up my extensive library of .ogg and flac files on my Ipod Touch.

VLC not crap (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526948)

The only kind of file I have a problem with are those infernal .mkv videos. VLC does a better job of playing video than Apple's DVD player and Quicktime player. Consequently I never use either of them. Apple should allow this but would they? They may as well cease developing their own video playing software.

Wish them luck but doubt it'll make it through... (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526996)

Wish them luck but I doubt it'll make it through the approval process, especially given how A-hole-ish Apple comes off on today's '10 commandments' [engadget.com] notice. Gonna be pretty hard to ever navigate those waters without having an 'in' to help you out.

screw the iPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33527122)

When are we going to see VLC on Android?

Ummmm ... why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33527162)

I'm a big fan of VLC on both Windows and Linux, but an iPod? VLC's strength is that it can play ANYTHING well, but iPods can only load and play .m4v format (.mp4, but it has to be named .m4v or iTunes won't find it), and the iPod already has a player for that. What's the advantage that wasn't there before?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>