To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I was refering to MF. The best approach would be for them to support it as a backend and then ship MFTs.
The benefit users get is that there is just one entity (the OS) handling codecs, streams, just about anything media related. A single instance which developers can tap into (if Apple creates MFTs then I can use those as well), a single instance that needs updating, and so on.
However, I am not using MF in my application. So I am as much to blame here. But my reasons are: lack of documentation and lack of resources (I am one guy). If Apple (and others) would start using the native systems then we smaller developers could get going as well since a system grows with its userbase. More knowledge spreading around the interwebs and more docs from MS, making it a lot easier to use.




Member since:
2007-09-08
Not necessarily. Neither Windows XP nor Windows Vista shipped with the necessary codecs. Windows 7 ships with most of them, but there would be no way to integrate Apple's DRM.
Even if there was, they would still need QuickTime to support Windows XP, Windows Vista and Mac OS X. There's no benefit in supporting two different back-ends, just so that Windows 7 users don't have to install QuickTime.
It's not like having QuickTime installed takes up any resources anyway. Unless you go and run the thing yourself, it's just taking up a small amount of disk space. Far less than iTunes or Safari do, at any rate.