You may not understand that to some people Apple is like a sports team that we cheer for. Just like College football, only it's a consumer electronics company. Nintendo has the same sort of following. When there's a rich history and a tradition of excellence there comes with it the die-hard and loyal fans.
Simple as that really, if you don't understand it...well, I hope you have a favorite sports team, so you can sort of compare the feeling you get from that with the way people here feel about Apple.
I think this forum is a microcosm of what Apple's user base is. All I know is that Apple will be letting down thousands upon thousands of people if they don't do a live streaming broadcast of the keynote. Might be good for Apple's bottom line, but not good for Apple as a company that wants to continue to woo and foster a loyal base.
In one year, almost no one will remember. Most people can't remember last year's keynote, not even those of us in fanboy central.
The only who will remember are the ones who hang all their emotional baggage on the company, like it's the girl they have a burning crush on from across the schoolyard. Apple does enjoy a very loyal user base, but I can tell you that most of these people aren't that heavily invested in the company emotionally, thankfully. After so many years of Apple screw-ups, Apple supposedly "turning" on its users and so forth, this isn't even a blip on the radar.
Besides, it's more fun to read those play-by-play websites and reload apple.com every 3 seconds than deal with stuttering streams anyway.
I disagree with you. I don't hang my emotional baggage on anything Apple. It's a simple matter of giving customers the service they are used to. Nobody is asking Apple to do anything they havent done before, in fact, we're just wishing for them to keep up with tradition.
I consider it to be a service of sorts, as it basically gives me an update on everything about Apple. I want to be as current as I possibly can be, as a stock-holder especially. Minutes can make or break an investment decision.
No one said that can't afford it. Only that the benefit relative to the cost is not worth it.
When you bought that $3000 computer...did you get more benefit than it cost you? Would you have bought it if you didn't? Apple is using this logic in running their business (which is why they are successful doing so.)
Oh yeah? How about me watching the Keynote and deciding I want to buy a new xMac?
How about me watching the Keynote with my Windows friends and telling them how cool this stuff is and one or two of them buying an xMac?
I got the benefit from my $3,000 computer but I could have gotten the same benefit from a $799 eMac. I decided to buy the $3,000 one not because it made economic sense to me but because it made economic sense to the company that makes some of the most appealing products in the industry. This should be a two-way road.
MacInTouch can hardly be considered "an obscure Mac site" except, perhaps, by someone as clueless about it as you apparently are.
I've been a Mac user and Mac news fiend for years, but I've never heard of their site until this past week. Go figure...maybe that was their intention? I think they just wanted some hits.
I've been a Mac user and Mac news fiend for years, but I've never heard of their site until this past week. Go figure...maybe that was their intention? I think they just wanted some hits.
You must be kidding? MacinTouch has been around for an eternity. LoL I think it was around before MacUser magazine in the U.S. disappeared from the scene. That's been eons. Maybe you're confusing them with Thinksecret (who cut much of the 4-1-1 and is a "RUMORS" site), as even they've been around for less time than MacinTouch. Yet they've still been around for a few years at the very least.
I won't go into how reputable a source MacinTouch is for news (one can even argue that MacCentral or MacNN isn't that reputable, depending on one's vantage [seen others do it before]), but I would suffice to say it's as easily or more reputable than any rumors site you attend if that makes you feel better? Considering you're here at Appleinsider, you must put some stake in rumors' sites, correct?
As far as services... they come and go. If anyone remembers, Apple used to give the partial equivalent of APP for free. Any new Mac had free technical support for up to 3-5 years (forget the actual #). 1-800-SOS-APPL was the number you called. In this instance it isn't the equivalent of Apple dropping "FREE" tech support, it's that they're putting a delay on it compared to those that are actually paying to attend because providing said service isn't beneficial to the company. A "pay per view" stream would likely work, but there'd be those that balk even at that, and Apple would still have to forecast demand and hope and pray that they meet or "mildly" exceed the necessary infrastructure. Buy too much infrastructure and they waste $, buy too little and the whole thing locks up, spits, and farts like Shrek after a bad batch of swamp stew. That's still a guessing game with $. Not to mention no non-Apple fanatic is going to pay for it. Why pay for a feed of something to see what it is that you may or may not spend $ on? The only people that care so adamantly about the "live" aspect of it are Mac fanatics who already own a Mac, and likely will buy one even if the feed is delayed.
As a supposed "stock holder" if you were that in earnest over the promptness of your news, you'd pack up and head to MWSF, not crankyank on a messageboard whining about it not being live, especially when this could be beneficial to Apple's bottomline (and therefore yours) not to. The best thing I can offer you is... you'll get over it.
Now if you excuse me... I'm going to go file my petition that I demand Apple make Copland work on my 7100 since they promised it to, and simultaneously add Rhapsody support for my PCI-based beige machines since those were similar in being promised. ::chuckling:: Oh and I like my computers like I like my coffee... beige. ROFL Maybe I should write Ives and Jobs and complain? ::shaking head:: I want to be a trendy whiner like the rest of the crew, just need my creative outlet to find an "in" to leave my mark.
I can't wait if Apple releases this headless machine and it doesn't have 3 PCI's and an upgradable AGP slot. Mannnnnnnnnnnnnn can you imagine the whining that's going to take place because Apple didn't make a mini Pro machine out of a bargain basement PC competitor? Sheesh. I think I might have to invest in stock in Apple and Kleenex simultaneously. Hell everyone who watches the Stevenote (if not Live, more than likely Memorexed) is likely going to shed a happy tear if even 1/2 the rumors hold true. So that'd add to the profits (Kleenex usage) too. The rest will be depressed and cranky and likely shed even more tears. Either way it's a win-win.
I disagree, it's marketing + services but even there... it's probably not going away entirely like some 'free' Apple Services have in the past (i.e. Tech support became the pay APP, .mac went from free to pay, etc.) , nor is Apple breaking any promises as they've never once said that live streaming was a permanent endeavor.
It's not "LIVE", but if they show a delayed broadcast... they're still releasing the same product marketing on a delayed schedule; while flooding the market with cheap marketing via all of the press releases on the news sites. Instead of a "live" stream, we'll likely have the "on-demand" stream we've always been privy to since televising keynotes started. It won't be available spot-on as it happens... but if you wait, it'll likely be there soon after. I don't see the big deal in it.
I'd rather have a delayed broadcast that saves Apple some $ that they can reinvest in R&D of even better products than play the speculation game with regards to infrastructure/bandwidth to make the keynote 'live' and likely lose $ on it when the only people watching are likely something similar to this scenario:
(these obviously aren't exact #'s)
48,000+ rabid Mac fiends
10,000+ casual Mac users
x # of non-Mac users (Windows/otherwise) likely watching with one of the above 2 Mac-using demographic "friends" of theirs
Of which, a likely scenario has most of the Mac userbase buying new hardware if they liked the product if they heard the news via carrier pigeon or CNBC's or CNN HN's delayed snippet coverage, or via the releases copy/pasted up on MacCentral, MacNN, or via rumors' site coverage so live isn't that important... they, like many of us, are like Crack Addicts for the Mac (i.e. MacAddict); you won't give up no matter what Apple does. After the promises of Copland/Gershwin/Rhapsody that didn't materialize in those OS's running out of the box on the hardware I owned/own and was promised compatibility with... you can still see I'm still here. ::waving:: As I said before, you'll get over it.
Most of your PC userbase that even cares about what Apple does will find out about the newer Macs via other news outlets than watching the keynote "live". A live stream will mean very little to them until they join the fray, if they even do. If it's not there... they won't have anything to cry about like some are right now.
Oh yeah? How about me watching the Keynote and deciding I want to buy a new xMac?
How about me watching the Keynote with my Windows friends and telling them how cool this stuff is and one or two of them buying an xMac?
I assume that you are arguing that these are benefits to Apple of having the live keynote. Fine. Perhaps they are. However, possibly Apple has determined that these benefits are not enough to compensate for the costs of doing a live stream. Now, I ask you, if the keynote is available only a few hours later, when you are then able to stream it from the website for yourself or you and your "Windows friends"...won't Apple receive the same benefits? Will a few hour delay really and truly diminish the value you have suggested here? And at (reportedly) substantially lower cost to Apple?
Personally, as a shareholder I would applaud this exact kind of decision-making.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I got the benefit from my $3,000 computer but I could have gotten the same benefit from a $799 eMac. I decided to buy the $3,000 one not because it made economic sense to me but because it made economic sense to the company that makes some of the most appealing products in the industry. This should be a two-way road.
Well good for you. Economically speaking, your decision-making in that purchase would be consider non-rational. But that's fine. I love Apple too...but I also, personally, choose to make purchasing decisions based on the value some of their product is going to bring to me. I don't have any delusions that they "owe" me anything other than a reliable product that I have spent money for and reasonable support for said product(s). They don't owe me a live keynote stream (BTW...I have never been able to even watch one effectively..perhaps because of the massive number of viewers...it has always been crappy...for me...to watch, so I've waited for the canned stream). They don't owe me a release of a PBG5. They don't own me anything. Or you for that matter, I expect.
Sorry. I think you're being irrational and childish about this (as are any others that assume that Apple owes you something). I don't disagree that a live keynote might be nice. But a delayed, canned stream will work just fine. And if that doesn't happen...well, then I'll find out everything I need to know about their new products from their website.
Oh...and contrary to what appears to be the prevailing thinking...this won't be the end of the world. Or...if it is...a live Apple keynote will be the least of our concerns.
Apple is apparently dead set against live info from the keynote in any way, shape or form. Not only do they not have the live QT stream, but they also have blocked net access in the keynote hall and apparently will have people roaming the hall during the keynote to catch any people posting in blogs, forums or chats while it's happening.
NOTICE! We've just learned that there is NO net access in the Keynote hall. That means we'll be using several cell phones to connect to the net during the Keynote Address. Because of this, Brian may pop in and out of the Keynoteuser ichat forum, but we're sure someone will keep it open so folks can chat about the show. If we can find someone who'll be watching it live in an Apple store, we may ask them to run the chat in our place. We do still plan on updating the news page as fast as we can, so count on that still being posted at a near live pace.
Quote:
8:12 am
Sunday Morning-
Today I?ve been informed that there are actually people roaming the crowd during the Keynote Address watching for bloggers who are connected to the net. They?ll throw you out if they find you doing it. We?re going to attempt a few pocked hidden Bluetooth connections, but if we fail, there won?t be a live news feed. We?ll continue to write our thoughts out and blog, it just won?t go live until a few seconds after the show. What a drag. I guess Apple want?s the secrets to last until 10:30 am pacific this time.
this is really weird, no? I mean, what is the harm of letting people in on the secret if they are not there in attendance, what is the difference between an hour and a half of time of secrecy?
I disagree with you. I don't hang my emotional baggage on anything Apple. It's a simple matter of giving customers the service they are used to. Nobody is asking Apple to do anything they havent done before, in fact, we're just wishing for them to keep up with tradition.
Reminds me of when Apple made .Mac non-free then iPhoto. There was a tradition of them giving loyal Mac users something for "free" and then they stopped. It sucks, but it's life. WHat you take home with you in a box is what you count on, all the "promises" of what a company will do in the future that are not in a printed contract (and even those can go out the window in extreme circumstances).
a satellite uplink, equipment, testing, and bandwidth would probabl set Apple back about 10k for 3 hours. Considering they are gonna use about 6-8mbit MPEG2 broadcast.
I dont know how much satellite they use per year, but I guess they just have an "occassional use" contract piggy backed on some other TV broadcastinging company's contract.
At least thats how it would woork with our company.
10k for an event like this is nothing.
The costs of the bandwidth for the UNICAST live event streaming on the other hand... probably much more than the satellite. Servers, testing, optimmizing, and gigabytes (if not tera) of data transfer
Lack of a webcast does not surprise me. What is surprising is the lack of a satellite feed. Apple doesn't need to preach to the choir, so to speak, but they need to get news out to the press. Why would they not give a feed to news gathering services to record and distribute? Lack of video for news organizations leads to lack of a story.
Satellite time is cheap, and it looks like they will have a production crew there if there is going to be a delayed video stream, so why not provide the sat link?
Comments
Simple as that really, if you don't understand it...well, I hope you have a favorite sports team, so you can sort of compare the feeling you get from that with the way people here feel about Apple.
Originally posted by OrbitPink
I think this forum is a microcosm of what Apple's user base is. All I know is that Apple will be letting down thousands upon thousands of people if they don't do a live streaming broadcast of the keynote. Might be good for Apple's bottom line, but not good for Apple as a company that wants to continue to woo and foster a loyal base.
In one year, almost no one will remember. Most people can't remember last year's keynote, not even those of us in fanboy central.
The only who will remember are the ones who hang all their emotional baggage on the company, like it's the girl they have a burning crush on from across the schoolyard. Apple does enjoy a very loyal user base, but I can tell you that most of these people aren't that heavily invested in the company emotionally, thankfully. After so many years of Apple screw-ups, Apple supposedly "turning" on its users and so forth, this isn't even a blip on the radar.
Besides, it's more fun to read those play-by-play websites and reload apple.com every 3 seconds than deal with stuttering streams anyway.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
It's not service. It's marketing only.
I consider it to be a service of sorts, as it basically gives me an update on everything about Apple. I want to be as current as I possibly can be, as a stock-holder especially. Minutes can make or break an investment decision.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No one said that can't afford it. Only that the benefit relative to the cost is not worth it.
When you bought that $3000 computer...did you get more benefit than it cost you? Would you have bought it if you didn't? Apple is using this logic in running their business (which is why they are successful doing so.)
Oh yeah? How about me watching the Keynote and deciding I want to buy a new xMac?
How about me watching the Keynote with my Windows friends and telling them how cool this stuff is and one or two of them buying an xMac?
I got the benefit from my $3,000 computer but I could have gotten the same benefit from a $799 eMac. I decided to buy the $3,000 one not because it made economic sense to me but because it made economic sense to the company that makes some of the most appealing products in the industry. This should be a two-way road.
Originally posted by nomoreboxes
We should all sign a petition online to show how many of us love to watch the live coverage!
I'd be game, but I don't know how to set up such a thing.
Originally posted by OrbitPink
Which are based on what? Some BS from an obscure Mac site?
MacInTouch can hardly be considered "an obscure Mac site" except, perhaps, by someone as clueless about it as you apparently are.
Originally posted by sjk
MacInTouch can hardly be considered "an obscure Mac site" except, perhaps, by someone as clueless about it as you apparently are.
I've been a Mac user and Mac news fiend for years, but I've never heard of their site until this past week. Go figure...maybe that was their intention? I think they just wanted some hits.
Originally posted by OrbitPink
I've been a Mac user and Mac news fiend for years, but I've never heard of their site until this past week. Go figure...maybe that was their intention? I think they just wanted some hits.
You must be kidding? MacinTouch has been around for an eternity. LoL I think it was around before MacUser magazine in the U.S. disappeared from the scene. That's been eons. Maybe you're confusing them with Thinksecret (who cut much of the 4-1-1 and is a "RUMORS" site), as even they've been around for less time than MacinTouch. Yet they've still been around for a few years at the very least.
I won't go into how reputable a source MacinTouch is for news (one can even argue that MacCentral or MacNN isn't that reputable, depending on one's vantage [seen others do it before]), but I would suffice to say it's as easily or more reputable than any rumors site you attend if that makes you feel better? Considering you're here at Appleinsider, you must put some stake in rumors' sites, correct?
As far as services... they come and go. If anyone remembers, Apple used to give the partial equivalent of APP for free. Any new Mac had free technical support for up to 3-5 years (forget the actual #). 1-800-SOS-APPL was the number you called. In this instance it isn't the equivalent of Apple dropping "FREE" tech support, it's that they're putting a delay on it compared to those that are actually paying to attend because providing said service isn't beneficial to the company. A "pay per view" stream would likely work, but there'd be those that balk even at that, and Apple would still have to forecast demand and hope and pray that they meet or "mildly" exceed the necessary infrastructure. Buy too much infrastructure and they waste $, buy too little and the whole thing locks up, spits, and farts like Shrek after a bad batch of swamp stew. That's still a guessing game with $. Not to mention no non-Apple fanatic is going to pay for it. Why pay for a feed of something to see what it is that you may or may not spend $ on? The only people that care so adamantly about the "live" aspect of it are Mac fanatics who already own a Mac, and likely will buy one even if the feed is delayed.
As a supposed "stock holder" if you were that in earnest over the promptness of your news, you'd pack up and head to MWSF, not crankyank on a messageboard whining about it not being live, especially when this could be beneficial to Apple's bottomline (and therefore yours) not to. The best thing I can offer you is... you'll get over it.
Now if you excuse me... I'm going to go file my petition that I demand Apple make Copland work on my 7100 since they promised it to, and simultaneously add Rhapsody support for my PCI-based beige machines since those were similar in being promised.
I can't wait if Apple releases this headless machine and it doesn't have 3 PCI's and an upgradable AGP slot. Mannnnnnnnnnnnnn can you imagine the whining that's going to take place because Apple didn't make a mini Pro machine out of a bargain basement PC competitor? Sheesh. I think I might have to invest in stock in Apple and Kleenex simultaneously.
Originally posted by OrbitPink
I'd be game, but I don't know how to set up such a thing.
http://www.ipetitions.com
Originally posted by BuonRotto
It's not service. It's marketing only.
I disagree, it's marketing + services but even there... it's probably not going away entirely like some 'free' Apple Services have in the past (i.e. Tech support became the pay APP, .mac went from free to pay, etc.) , nor is Apple breaking any promises as they've never once said that live streaming was a permanent endeavor.
It's not "LIVE", but if they show a delayed broadcast... they're still releasing the same product marketing on a delayed schedule; while flooding the market with cheap marketing via all of the press releases on the news sites. Instead of a "live" stream, we'll likely have the "on-demand" stream we've always been privy to since televising keynotes started. It won't be available spot-on as it happens... but if you wait, it'll likely be there soon after. I don't see the big deal in it.
I'd rather have a delayed broadcast that saves Apple some $ that they can reinvest in R&D of even better products than play the speculation game with regards to infrastructure/bandwidth to make the keynote 'live' and likely lose $ on it when the only people watching are likely something similar to this scenario:
(these obviously aren't exact #'s)
- 48,000+ rabid Mac fiends
Of which, a likely scenario has most of the Mac userbase buying new hardware if they liked the product if they heard the news via carrier pigeon or CNBC's or CNN HN's delayed snippet coverage, or via the releases copy/pasted up on MacCentral, MacNN, or via rumors' site coverage so live isn't that important... they, like many of us, are like Crack Addicts for the Mac (i.e. MacAddict); you won't give up no matter what Apple does. After the promises of Copland/Gershwin/Rhapsody that didn't materialize in those OS's running out of the box on the hardware I owned/own and was promised compatibility with... you can still see I'm still here. ::waving:: As I said before, you'll get over it.10,000+ casual Mac users
x # of non-Mac users (Windows/otherwise) likely watching with one of the above 2 Mac-using demographic "friends" of theirs
Most of your PC userbase that even cares about what Apple does will find out about the newer Macs via other news outlets than watching the keynote "live". A live stream will mean very little to them until they join the fray, if they even do. If it's not there... they won't have anything to cry about like some are right now.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Oh yeah? How about me watching the Keynote and deciding I want to buy a new xMac?
How about me watching the Keynote with my Windows friends and telling them how cool this stuff is and one or two of them buying an xMac?
I assume that you are arguing that these are benefits to Apple of having the live keynote. Fine. Perhaps they are. However, possibly Apple has determined that these benefits are not enough to compensate for the costs of doing a live stream. Now, I ask you, if the keynote is available only a few hours later, when you are then able to stream it from the website for yourself or you and your "Windows friends"...won't Apple receive the same benefits? Will a few hour delay really and truly diminish the value you have suggested here? And at (reportedly) substantially lower cost to Apple?
Personally, as a shareholder I would applaud this exact kind of decision-making.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I got the benefit from my $3,000 computer but I could have gotten the same benefit from a $799 eMac. I decided to buy the $3,000 one not because it made economic sense to me but because it made economic sense to the company that makes some of the most appealing products in the industry. This should be a two-way road.
Well good for you. Economically speaking, your decision-making in that purchase would be consider non-rational. But that's fine. I love Apple too...but I also, personally, choose to make purchasing decisions based on the value some of their product is going to bring to me. I don't have any delusions that they "owe" me anything other than a reliable product that I have spent money for and reasonable support for said product(s). They don't owe me a live keynote stream (BTW...I have never been able to even watch one effectively..perhaps because of the massive number of viewers...it has always been crappy...for me...to watch, so I've waited for the canned stream). They don't owe me a release of a PBG5. They don't own me anything. Or you for that matter, I expect.
Sorry. I think you're being irrational and childish about this (as are any others that assume that Apple owes you something). I don't disagree that a live keynote might be nice. But a delayed, canned stream will work just fine. And if that doesn't happen...well, then I'll find out everything I need to know about their new products from their website.
Oh...and contrary to what appears to be the prevailing thinking...this won't be the end of the world. Or...if it is...a live Apple keynote will be the least of our concerns.
read up on http://www.keynoteuser.com
NOTICE! We've just learned that there is NO net access in the Keynote hall. That means we'll be using several cell phones to connect to the net during the Keynote Address. Because of this, Brian may pop in and out of the Keynoteuser ichat forum, but we're sure someone will keep it open so folks can chat about the show. If we can find someone who'll be watching it live in an Apple store, we may ask them to run the chat in our place. We do still plan on updating the news page as fast as we can, so count on that still being posted at a near live pace.
8:12 am
Sunday Morning-
Today I?ve been informed that there are actually people roaming the crowd during the Keynote Address watching for bloggers who are connected to the net. They?ll throw you out if they find you doing it. We?re going to attempt a few pocked hidden Bluetooth connections, but if we fail, there won?t be a live news feed. We?ll continue to write our thoughts out and blog, it just won?t go live until a few seconds after the show. What a drag. I guess Apple want?s the secrets to last until 10:30 am pacific this time.
why would they want to do this?
unless.... HE IS GOING TO BRAINWASH THE AUDIENCE!
this is really weird, no? I mean, what is the harm of letting people in on the secret if they are not there in attendance, what is the difference between an hour and a half of time of secrecy?
Originally posted by OrbitPink
I disagree with you. I don't hang my emotional baggage on anything Apple. It's a simple matter of giving customers the service they are used to. Nobody is asking Apple to do anything they havent done before, in fact, we're just wishing for them to keep up with tradition.
Reminds me of when Apple made .Mac non-free then iPhoto. There was a tradition of them giving loyal Mac users something for "free" and then they stopped. It sucks, but it's life. WHat you take home with you in a box is what you count on, all the "promises" of what a company will do in the future that are not in a printed contract (and even those can go out the window in extreme circumstances).
I dont know how much satellite they use per year, but I guess they just have an "occassional use" contract piggy backed on some other TV broadcastinging company's contract.
At least thats how it would woork with our company.
10k for an event like this is nothing.
The costs of the bandwidth for the UNICAST live event streaming on the other hand... probably much more than the satellite. Servers, testing, optimmizing, and gigabytes (if not tera) of data transfer
Satellite time is cheap, and it looks like they will have a production crew there if there is going to be a delayed video stream, so why not provide the sat link?