When will Media Player become compatible...?

Are there any plans to make WMP compatible with Safari? So far I've found Safari much better to use that IE with this one exception, media player not playing.

Hi and welcome to the Apple discussions forum!
Well the WMP is allready compatible with Safari :~)
All you need to do is to download the WMP Plugin from here:
http://www.apple.com/safari/download/plugins.html <<
Cheers, J_G
null

Similar Messages

When will creative labs become compatible with AAC fil

I've been using itunes to upload music and I wanted to know when creativelabs will be compatible with the itune friendly AAC files.

Time to rip this post apart.
<<I'll hand it to you for persistence, although I don't know why you CONTINUALLY try to disrupt a tech forum for Creative with pro-Apple BS.>>
Pro-Apple BS? How was pointing out that AAC is an open format pro-Apple? It's not. Don't make up things. All I did was point out that AAC is open and that it can be played on any OS, or any MPEG-4 compatible software or hardware.
<<AAC is a proprietary format. It is, as you should know, based on the audio specification for MPG4, which came out over 6 years ago. Dolby Labs controls the licensing of this format, the codec and the chips to decode and encode it. The fees are substantially higher than those for WMA, and of course, than MP3.>>
Stop getting your information from that post on Napster that I debunked MONTHS ago. I proved that wrong and you know very well that it's wrong. Anyway, Dolby does control the licensing for MPEG-4 AAC, yes. However, licensing fees are not anything like you or that Napster post said. I provided information back then, so you can go back and look for yourself, if you're still choosing to throw your money away on Napster. If licensing fees are so bad, then why are there so many freeware players that play AAC files? MPEG-4 AAC files! Why? Why can I download a FREE operating system (Linux), and use completely free software to rip and play AAC files? Exactly. iTunes is freeware you know. Why can I download it for free and rip and play AAC files? Surely Apple isn't going to front the bill for millions of people to use iTunes to just rip, organize, and play their music.
<<AAC is not the logical successor to MP3. If only WMA or AAC are considered, then WMA is the clear winner in that race. >>
How is WMA the clear winner? Besides the fact that WMA sounds noticably inferior at any bitrate.... Even HE-AAC mops the floor with WMA9 Pro at low bitrates. Anyway, how is WMA the clear winner? AAC compatible digital audio players control *90%* of the hard dri've market, 43% of the flash market, and a combined total of over *70%* of the entire market. Let's not forget that the number one online music store, which controls over 70% of the market, uses AAC as it's format of choice, and the next biggest online store behind very distant number 2 Napster is using AAC as well. Soon Napster will be launching a "music to go" rental service that targets ALL platforms. Can you guess the file format of choice? AAC
<<In fact, WMA9 Pro is under consideration for the next generation "CD" compression. This, along with DVD-A and SACD. Note there is nothing from Dolby under consideration at all. >>
hahahaha says who? Actually, since MPEG-4 is part of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specs, AAC is already part of the deal And, right now, SACD has the same market penetration that CD at the same point in it's lifetime. So SACD is well on it's way to becoming the "next CD". As it looks right now, SACD will become the CD format of "tomorrow", while the iTunes Music Store is handling the current "CD quality" music business just fine. As it stands though, honestly, it will be a combination of two things. SACDs for audiophiles, and iTunes-like downloads for everyone else.
Also, Dolby only handles the licensing portion of AAC. AAC was developed by a number of companies, including Sony. Sony has a stake in SACD, blu-ray, and any optical disc technology that comes out. So I can guarantee you that they will not let AAC die, even if it kills their precious atrac3/atrac3plus format.
And another thing to consider is that the recording industry wants a standard across all platforms for digtial music downloads. And considering 70% of the market is AAC compatible, and by the end of this year, a certain online music store will have passed over $b in total revenue, you can imagine which format will win.
<<Even assuming the original poster meant he wants to load non-DRM ("Fairplay") tracks on his Creative player, it will not likely happen so long as Apple is intent on blocking 3rd parties from using purchased iTunes songs on any other player.>>
What does iTunes purchased songs have to do with AAC files ripped from anyother source? Exactly. Using Apple is an excuse for companies to not support AAC. It's their loss though. If Creative would support AAC, they would have opened themselves up to the market of millions of people who do use iTunes and Real Player 0+ to rip their CDs.
<<It is unlikely Creative will spend the license money for a purpose so limited as self-ripped AAC files when there are other free alternati'ves to somebody ripping their own CD's.>>
How are AAC files limited? AAC files can be played and ripped on any platform. If you want to talk about limited, you have to look at WMA. It only works under one OS and only certain players can play it. And what free alternati'ves are there? MP3 licensing isn't free. WMA licensing isn't free. If you're selling a player for profit, you HAVE to pay for WMA and MP3 decoding capabilities.
<<AAC is a good-sounding compressed format, but for mass acceptance it will always remain a niche unless Apple opens things up and Dolby lightens up on their expesi've licensing.>>
Mass acceptance? AAC has already been accepted by the masses. Over 350 million songs sold in AAC, and 70% of the digital audio player market is AAC compatible. I think players that DON'T support AAC are currently in the niche market
<<Something good like Oog Voorbis has a better chance of becoming the successor to MP3, I think, and even that remains a niche at this point. >>
Ogg Vorbis will never replace MP3s. First off, the sound quality isn't as good as AAC. Secondly, Ogg Vorbis requires a processor with a FPU. FPU require more battery power, so battery life is affected significantly. And most importantly, there are no CONVENIENT Ogg Vorbis encoders. Not to mention Ogg Vorbis still has a lot of bugs that need worked out. They only recently worked out a bug that was causing significant high end distortion that greatly affected the sound quality of the files. Plus Ogg Vorbis has no DRM container.
Also, transcoding a file degrades the sound quality significantly.

When will iPhone 5 be compatible with Brazilian internet 4G

I live in Brazil and would like to have an iPhone 5. But (what I thought unthinkable) I got to know it's not compatible with Brazilian internet 4G. When will iPhone 5 be compatible with our 4G? Is Apple doing anything about this? I see no point in buying an expensive an state of the art phone and not to be able to use it with 4G. And about other devices like iPad and iPod?
Thank you.

We don't know. However, what Apple knows and is willing to share regarding 4G/LTE compatibility is found here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1937 (updated recently).

Why won't Quicktime 7.4.1 play .wmv files when Windows Media Player will?

I am running OS 10.4.11 on a Power Mac G4 Quicksilver 2002. When I try to play .wmv files, the following message appears: "The movie could not be opened. The file is not a movie file." However, I can play such files using Windows Media Player. I have installed Quicktime 7.4.1. That hasn't helped.

Thanks for the suggestions, but I already had Flip4Mac installed. However, I re-installed it, but I get the same disappointing message when I try to open .wmv files from Flip4Mac's "Quicktime Player." Perian doesn't work either. At http://lifehacker.com/software/quicktime/download-of-the-day-perian-mac-204423.p hp I read the following: Perian is a freeware plug-in designed to enable the playback of almost every popular video codec in Quicktime.
In fact, pretty much the only major codec not supported by Perian is Windows Media Video files (WMV), but previously-mentioned Flip4Mac should take care of your WMV needs.
I'd appreciate additional comments and suggestions.

Firefox using over 2 million k memory when using media player classic

Hi I have used Media player classic for years for videos but I have had this problem for over a month now when ever I watch a video with it with firefox open the memory usage of firefox max's out and locks the pc up now I have changed media player but I was wondering if there is a fix as I like media player classic

Hello,
Do you really mean Media Player Classic? Both [http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/files/ the original] and [http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli2/files/ the fork] are no longer being developed. You should use the latest version of Media Player Classic Home Cinema. I've been using it for nearly a decade alongside Firefox with no issues. You have a 64-bit operating system, so be sure to get the 64-bit version.
* http://mpc-hc.org
This may be unrelated, but many of your plug-ins are outdated. I spotted the following; to check for others, see the Mozilla Plug-in Check page.
* https://www.mozilla.org/plugincheck/
Flash Player (Shockwave Flash)
* [http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/installation-problems-flash-player-windows.html#main-pars_text_4 Direct downloads of Flash Player for Windows | Adobe Support]
Adobe Reader 
Adobe doesn't make the download links to the latest version available to Windows Vista users, but [https://support.mozilla.org/questions/988948#answer-544097 it does work under Vista].
* [http://ardownload.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/11.x/11.0.06/en_US/AdbeRdr11006_en_US.exe AdbeRdr11006_en_US.exe (HTTP)] or [ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/reader/win/11.x/11.0.06/en_US/AdbeRdr11006_en_US.exe AdbeRdr11006_en_US.exe (FTP)]
VLC
* http://www.videolan.org

When will you make Firefix compatible with Google tool bar?

Clicked your update in error. Now can't use Google toolbar.
When will you fix your browser

You have it backwards. Google (and other 3rd-party vendors) must make their products compatible with the browser.
'''Some Background Information''' 
Included with every Firefox extension is a file named install.rdf. In that file is a parameter "em:maxVersion" which indicates the maximum Firefox version with which the extension '''has been tested and approved by the developer''' (Google, in this case). Only the developer (Google) is responsible for changing that parameter. Firefox enforces that parameter.
That said. Google and all other developers know where to find the Firefox release schedule for new versions and where to find the test versions (beta) to use to test their product. The location of the release schedule and the beta versions '''is no secret'''. Firefox 5, and all other versions, underwent several weeks of beta testing, during which third-party developers (Google) had an opportunity to do their testing and make necessary changes to make their product(s) compatible. In addition to the 4 weeks of beta testing for Firefox 5, Google has had an additional 19 days since the release of Firefox 5, to make their product compatible. '''Ask Google what is keeping a compatible release from being introduced.'''
'''Google MAY be ceasing support for their toolbar in Firefox.''' See the list of supported browsers in the following:
*http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1111588#toolbar_info
'''An add-on that may help''' 
Many users have found that installing the following add-on will restore some (maybe all) functionality for Google's toolbar.
*'''''Add-on Compatibility Reporter''''': https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

When will K8NM-FISR become available in the US?

when will the K8NM-FISR motherboard become available in the US?
can anyone with inside info tell us?

orschiro wrote:
@blackout23
https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Logs
I think mainly that it is based on GTK3.
That's exactly the same thing I have:
http://i.imgur.com/C4gO83P.png
The difference is that the 3.10 version isn't as advanced but still picks up your pacman.log. Still it's GTK 3 as you can see from the headerbar.
Last edited by blackout23 (2014-03-28 19:24:29)

When will adobe flash player become compatible with google nexus7 android tablet?

Also, I just found by your site that elearning is by Adobe. Why can't i access elearning on the nexus with Google Chrome? Why do I have to use Firefox?

Here's the official blog post on the state of Browser-based Flash Player on Android:
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/06/flash-player-and-android-update.html
I don't think the folks that work on eLearning monitor the Flash Player forums.
You'll want to post that question over in the eLearning Suite forums: http://forums.adobe.com/community/elearning
Also, moving this over to the Using Flash Player forum, as it's not specific to the Flash Player 11.5 Beta.

Is there a Window's Media Player download compatible with the INTEL iMacs?

I tried downloading MWP for Mac OSX and the file name was Windows Media.sitx and I couldnt do anything with that. I also tried downloading Windows Media Components for quicktime but it said it wasnt compatible with intel Macs.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
iMac G5 Intel Core Duo, 1.83GHz, 1GB RAM Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Although Microsoft no longer supports it, WMV9 for OSX works on the intel machine, running under Rosetta. That .sitx file you download can be uncompressed with the free Stuffit Expander for intel:
http://www.stuffit.com/mac/expander/universalbeta.html
Or re-download the WM Player as a .bin file from MS directly:
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location=/mac/download/ misc/winmp_osx.xml&secid=80&ssid=8&flgnosysreq=True
Alternatively, you can download the Popwire components for intel Mac, which allow WMV files to play in native Quicktime (7.0.4 and below only) or Flip4Mac, which will do the same, although only by running your Quicktime Player in Rosetta, as F4M has not released a universal version as of yet.

When will flash player be available for xbox and playstation

can someone help me. I would like to know when there will be a flash player for xbox and playstation? Thanks

Please see our roadmap for information about the future of Flash Player. As of yet, no announced support for Playstation, Xbox or Wii.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html

When will Flash Player support my 64-bit browser?

I have had my new Windows 7 PC for a couple of weeks now. When I first got it, I kept getting messages telling me I needed to install Adobe Flash Player in order to get the full experience of a website. So I installed the Flash Player. Subsequently at many websites I got a pesky message about the Flash Player. (I forget the precise content of the message, but I'm sure many people using 64-bit browsers are familiar with it.)
I went to Adobe's site and discovered that the Flash Player did not support 64-bit browsers. Adobe's recommended solution for this disturbing news was that I install and run a 32-bit version of Internet Explorer, and Adobe didn't exactly lead me by the hand in explaining how I should do that. I was told to go to Microsoft and get help there. Yeh, right! Suddenly I'm thinking about a couple of hours of hassle. Nevertheless I browsed over to Microsoft and clicked to a few pages. I did not find any easy-to-follow instructions on how to uninstall my 64-bit Internet Explorer 8 and install a 32-bit version.
Is Adobe advising me to take a step backward? Is, or is not, 64-bit browsing better than 32-bit browsing?
I did not, and have not, installed the 32-bit Internet Explorer. Instead I found help at Adobe for uninstalling the Flash Player. Those pesky messages are history.
I really have not noticed any difference in quality between my former 32-bit browsing and my present 64-bit browsing, with and without the Flash Player. My browsing experience has been good, and I think the Flash Player adds nothing significant. Surely it adds nothing critical. Windows Vista has come and gone without Adobe providing support for its 64-bit version. Maybe the same thing will happen for Windows 7. So be it. If a Flash Player comes out that supports 64 bits, then I will use it. If Flash Player never supports 64 bits, then I'll never again use Flash Player.
I saw another post here, a fairly recent one, where a replier said that about 70% of Internet browsers are still using Windows XP. (I guess more than 90% of those use 32-bit browsers.) Okay, I believe that, but what about the other 30%? If only a measly 5% of all Internet browsers use 64 bits, that's a hell-of-a-lot of people. Surely thousands, maybe millions. Are all these people to be fobbed off? Does Adobe really have something more important to work on?
Should Adobe be condemned for its lassitude regarding 64-bit support? I think so, but what about the horde of websites that features the Flash Player? Knowing well that there are thousands, or millions, of people using 64-bit browsers, should not those websites and their organizations also be condemned?

Frankly I think Adobe is treating its customers shabbilly in this regard. There is a much larger 64 bit windows installed base than 64 bit linux, yet adobe have released the 64 bit linux support first, and not even announced the 64 bit windows version in any way for over a year.
Come on Adobe, we understand you and Microsoft are competitors, but don't let your users get caught in the cross fire. There are now close to as many computers running 64 bit windows than there are running any version of linux, or any version of mac os, 32 bit included.
It has been over a year and a half since Adobe even updated its position on this issue on its web site. Search bing for 64 bit flash and you get 32 million hits. 64 bit windows is nearly 3 years old as a released product, and 4+ years in terms of dobe having access to it.
Adobe, surely at the very least, you owe it to your customers to tell them when you plan to address this.

When will you make adobe compatible with Dreamweaver

I'm a UI Designer. I know light html and CSS. I don't want to have to figure out all the latest browser compatibilities, and I want to be able to avoid learning javascript/jquery but be able have cool effects in my website or client websites like parallax scrolling, lightbox, etc.
If you went about this in an intelligent manner, you would make this compatible with Dreamweaver for designers to update, for UI/UX designers to use as high fidelity prototypes that can be handed off to developers later, and for designers to import into Dreamweaver to finesse styles and change elements. If this doesn't happen, I can easily see this becoming a dinosaur like Web Objects Fusion and clients will be left with obsolete products.
PLEASE make this a useful product that plays well with Dreamweaver!

You have it backwards. Google (and other 3rd-party vendors) must make their products compatible with the browser.
'''Some Background Information''' 
Included with every Firefox extension is a file named install.rdf. In that file is a parameter "em:maxVersion" which indicates the maximum Firefox version with which the extension '''has been tested and approved by the developer''' (Google, in this case). Only the developer (Google) is responsible for changing that parameter. Firefox enforces that parameter.
That said. Google and all other developers know where to find the Firefox release schedule for new versions and where to find the test versions (beta) to use to test their product. The location of the release schedule and the beta versions '''is no secret'''. Firefox 5, and all other versions, underwent several weeks of beta testing, during which third-party developers (Google) had an opportunity to do their testing and make necessary changes to make their product(s) compatible. In addition to the 4 weeks of beta testing for Firefox 5, Google has had an additional 19 days since the release of Firefox 5, to make their product compatible. '''Ask Google what is keeping a compatible release from being introduced.'''
'''Google MAY be ceasing support for their toolbar in Firefox.''' See the list of supported browsers in the following:
*http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1111588#toolbar_info
'''An add-on that may help''' 
Many users have found that installing the following add-on will restore some (maybe all) functionality for Google's toolbar.
*'''''Add-on Compatibility Reporter''''': https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

When will firefox 4 be compatible with adobe acrobat x pro?

I am missing the convert icon from Adobe Acrobat X Pro when I upgrade to Firefox 4, so I had to go back to the earlier version of Firefox.

You will need to ask Adobe about this, they will need to update their add-on to make it work.

When will Firefox 6. be compatible with Blackboard?

Your newest version of Firefox will not allow me to login to Blackboard. I am an instructor using Blackboard to teach online. The previous version worked well with Blackboard.

1. Firefox 4.0 includes the Sync feature, not need for the Firefox Sync extension.
2. Check with Nokia for an update for whatever Ovi Suite uses to interface with Firefox, like an extension or plugin. Addon developers are responsible for keeping their stuff compatible with Firefox updates.

When will CS3 be fully compatible with Leopard?

I haven't read any definitive answers to this question.
Adobe says when Acrobat 8.1.2 Pro is released in late Jan08: Leopard FAQ
But the 8.1.2 update this month didn't say anything about Leopard...
Does anyone know? We've been waiting to migrate to 10.5 for a couple of months now and CS3 is the last hold-up.

I understand CS3 came out before Leopard. But Leopard is a whole new operating system, they give core developers like Adobe months and months to make their software workable for the new OS. Third party developers always take alphas and betas from the OS builds, do they not? Is it the requirement that Apple make each and every software piece compatible with it's OS? So, they in essence have to do the third party's developer's work?
Further, if it's not compatible, then what grounds does Adobe have telling customers that it is. That would be a lie, then, wouldn't it? I'm just sayin. And I don't have Leopard OR CS3 yet, but I sure don't like the fact that Adobe is being pretty quiet about these issues--it takes someone some digging to figure this out, then they find engineers who are basically claiming it's not compatible, and to wait for likely 18 months until 10.6, and if I were Adobe's legal dept. I'd probably delete this post.
As far as *everyone* having issues, it doesn't seem to be the case--I am reading several threads where many have figured it out. Maybe I'll be lucky.
I can certainly see if Apple changed the specs (I'm not sure what this means, do they not provide seeds to you?), Adobe having a LOT to complain about. But I have not seen evidence of this other than an Adobe engineer calling the OS Buggy. Proof?
I think Apple being quiet about it is that they don't allow their staff to blame others in blanket statements on forums in direct contradiction to what they warrant in writing the software to be compatible with. Usually things like these come from press releases or a kb. Or Steve Jobs <g>
Buko, your blanket statement about CS3 being perfect in Tiger doesn't seem to wash. A quick look through the Apple forums and the forums here pretty much show that not to be the case. What seems to be clear is that Adobe's registration and auto update program are the problem. I won't go so far as to say they are poorly written and executed, but the scores of people who have had and continue to have numerous issues IN TIGER certainly point in that direction.
I suppose we could blame Apple for that, too?

When will Media Player become compatible...?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for