As I said, I've already seen that, but several months after the presentation. I was hoping for the latest WWDC keynote. There are some bits here and there on YouTube, but I don't see the whole presentation.
oops, maybe I should have read it a little slower.
In a few days I'll download the wwdc keynote and post it on youtube or google videos or something and post the link here.
The reason for the price drop is because probably this week they will roll out new CinemaDisplays with more features (built-in isight, speakers) at the previous prices. Can't very well charge the same for both. Apple just decided to drop the price on these before hand to clear out inventory, otherwise nobody would buy these if the new ones came out at the same time.
I agree. Integrating iSight into cinema displays seems like the most logical next step for Apple. However, would all Apple displays need to have iSights?
A nice drop but Apple?s monitors have never been the best value. HP?s L2335 was the Editor's Choice for monitors in its class. It can Pivot from Portrait to Landscape and comes with a 4 port USB hub!
The best (or worst depending on how you look at it) part is, even with Apple?s price drop both are still cheaper than Apple?s Cinema display.
That's not quite true.
Apple's monitors are the best value when they first come out. But Other makers come out with cheaper models a year or so later, and Apple doesn't lower their prices to match until shortly before they come out with new ones.
Why do they do this? Why do they wait years to drop the price and then drop it 25%?
By all accounts these monitors have been overpriced for some time now, couldn't they drop a hundred here and a hundred there as the componant prices drop? It would certainly decrease the buyers remorse for people who buy before the huge cut.
I sound like I'm complaining, but I am mostly curious as to the rationale...It seems inelegant.
oops, maybe I should have read it a little slower.
In a few days I'll download the wwdc keynote and post it on youtube or google videos or something and post the link here.
I'm pretty sure if you are not allowed to do that. It's copyright Apple. you would need permission, which you certainly won't get. Doesn't mean that you won't get away with it, but...
I'm pretty sure if you are not allowed to do that. It's copyright Apple. you would need permission, which you certainly won't get. Doesn't mean that you won't get away with it, but...
YouTube has so many of the old Apple presentations, I saw the G4 Cube in there. Either Apple hasn't noticed or they don't care.
I think it's my ISP's (or type of internet technology's) fault that I can't play streaming Quicktime (but will do streaming flash, go figure), but still, Apple's keynote feeds are useless for me. It isn't as if I can change ISPs without paying another $300/mo for a different high speed service to get to me, so I'd have to watch an unauthorized version.
YouTube has so many of the old Apple presentations, I saw the G4 Cube in there. Either Apple hasn't noticed or they don't care.
I think it's my ISP's (or type of internet technology's) fault that I can't play streaming Quicktime (but will do streaming flash, go figure), but still, Apple's keynote feeds are useless for me. It isn't as if I can change ISPs without paying another $300/mo for a different high speed service to get to me, so I'd have to watch an unauthorized version.
I can't understand, for certain, why some people have these problems. The only thing I can think of relates to the same problems VOIP is having with its deteriorating quality. The internet is NOT streaming transmission protocol friendly by nature. It is packet based. Those packets can take any route to you. However, most ISP's, as well as the backbone carriers regard streaming protocols as secondary to data transmission, and so give them lower priority. Thus, packets come in slowly, out of order, or not at all.
With the increasing traffic over the internet, these protocols are being consistently degraded. Some carriers are better than others, depending on their theory about the transmission of different protocols. I have 6Mbs from Covad with a static IP. That helps. I have no problem, even if my wife and daughter are on at the same time. But, Covad has always been good with this, even when they just offered lower speeds.
Apple may not care about some of them (video's) because they gave a lot of them out on CD's over the years. But they might care about a current re-broadcast such as this.
Of course, watching an unauthorized version won't get you in trouble. I was just concerned about someone putting it up though. Apple might not be happy about that person. and when Apple isn't happy...
I can't understand, for certain, why some people have these problems.
My service is by satellite, not DSL or cable, which is less friendly to streaming-type data than other Internet services. I really don't have any other high speed option save a T1. I had a T1 line for a while but I couldn't justify keeping it, and the telco was trying to avoid laying in good lines to keep the service reliable.
What I really don't understand is why Apple doesn't offer a straight download, it's less succeptible to service hiccups. I don't think bandwidth is the issue because they seem pretty happy uploading 50+GB files for minor software updates.
My service is by satellite, not DSL or cable, which is less friendly to streaming-type data than other Internet services. I really don't have any other high speed option save a T1. I had a T1 line for a while but I couldn't justify keeping it, and the telco was trying to avoid laying in good lines to keep the service reliable.
What I really don't understand is why Apple doesn't offer a straight download, it's less succeptible to service hiccups. I don't think bandwidth is the issue because they seem pretty happy uploading 50+GB files for minor software updates.
Sorry for you. Satellite is worse.
Apple offers only the stream, because, as I said before, they don't want people to take it too easily, just to watch it.
If someone wants to though, they can retreive it from the browsers cache before they close the browser.
Apple offers only the stream, because, as I said before, they don't want people to take it too easily, just to watch it.
That's old media thinking though, something that shows Apple really isn't being progressive about media. It's not a for-profit product and they don't lose anything even if everyone had a direct copy. It's basically a long advertisement, a better way of thinking is to get it out there rather than trying to protect it and control it. If the point was to show off their QT streaming technology, well, it was disappointing even when I had a good internet service.
That's old media thinking though, something that shows Apple really isn't being progressive about media. It's not a for-profit product and they don't lose anything even if everyone had a direct copy. It's basically a long advertisement, a better way of thinking is to get it out there rather than trying to protect it and control it. If the point was to show off their QT streaming technology, well, it was disappointing even when I had a good internet service.
They simply might no want people to chop it up, and perhaps modify it, and make fun of it.
You know, this really isn't a big think. If it were live, as it was two years ago and earlier, it would be different. But as it isn't, the interest level is much lower. I didn't bother to look at the last one until two or three months afterwards.
Again, the QT technology takes a second seat to the transmission situation of the carriers. with VOIP doing so badly ? and that's just voice, what can you expect of video?
They simply might no want people to chop it up, and perhaps modify it, and make fun of it.
You know, this really isn't a big think. If it were live, as it was two years ago and earlier, it would be different. But as it isn't, the interest level is much lower. I didn't bother to look at the last one until two or three months afterwards.
That's an illusion though, for the people that can get it, it is still possible to chop it up, modify and make fun of it but because of the choice of transmission medium, it is degraded for everyone. Personally, I wouldn't care to keep a copy for years, but I would want a good copy to play from as a time-shift rather than hope the stream is stable.
That's an illusion though, for the people that can get it, it is still possible to chop it up, modify and make fun of it but because of the choice of transmission medium, it is degraded for everyone. Personally, I wouldn't care to keep a copy for years, but I would want a good copy to play from as a time-shift rather than hope the stream is stable.
I didn't say it was impossible. That's why I mentioned that it could be retreived from the browser cache. But, it makes it more difficult.
And Apple can do nothing about the transmission medium itself.
I didn't say it was impossible. That's why I mentioned that it could be retreived from the browser cache. But, it makes it more difficult.
And Apple can do nothing about the transmission medium itself.
What I'm saying is the people that would bother going the effort to edit the video wouldn't have any problem getting a copy of the video, getting the video is still trivially easy assuming you have the connection. The people that don't care to edit the video aren't going to bother either way. In the end the effect to control it vs. the negative aspect of distributing a video file is practically nil.
Oddly enough, I've never had a problem with Flash streaming, so it would appear that Macromedia has a superior technology in that regard.
That's old media thinking though, something that shows Apple really isn't being progressive about media. It's not a for-profit product and they don't lose anything even if everyone had a direct copy. It's basically a long advertisement, a better way of thinking is to get it out there rather than trying to protect it and control it. If the point was to show off their QT streaming technology, well, it was disappointing even when I had a good internet service.
Old media thinking? Apple is the pioneer in hour-long streaming advertisements.
I suspect they want to be the sole host because it ensures the best viewing experience to the highest number of viewers. Granted, on the first day, it is always horribly bogged down. But really, their target audience isn't just us first day geeks. Instead, they want to ensure that everyone is watching a high quality stream rather than a random, cross-coded feed from elsewhere on the net.
I tried to find a torrent or a YouTube version last night because I had viewing problems. What happened? I failed, gave up, and will watch it from Apple's site tonight instead. By making this geek wait an additional day, they've ensured that everyone else over the next few months is watching a higher quality video.
Comments
here's part of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6JWqllbhXE
no, that was macworld in January. This is WWDC that is happenning right now.
As I said, I've already seen that, but several months after the presentation. I was hoping for the latest WWDC keynote. There are some bits here and there on YouTube, but I don't see the whole presentation.
oops, maybe I should have read it a little slower.
In a few days I'll download the wwdc keynote and post it on youtube or google videos or something and post the link here.
The reason for the price drop is because probably this week they will roll out new CinemaDisplays with more features (built-in isight, speakers) at the previous prices. Can't very well charge the same for both. Apple just decided to drop the price on these before hand to clear out inventory, otherwise nobody would buy these if the new ones came out at the same time.
I agree. Integrating iSight into cinema displays seems like the most logical next step for Apple. However, would all Apple displays need to have iSights?
A nice drop but Apple?s monitors have never been the best value. HP?s L2335 was the Editor's Choice for monitors in its class. It can Pivot from Portrait to Landscape and comes with a 4 port USB hub!
http://www.macworld.com/2005/02/revi...hlcd/index.php
Even Dell?s UltraSharp 2405FPW is competitive with Apple?s offering.
http://www.macworld.com/2005/12/revi...0fpw/index.php
The best (or worst depending on how you look at it) part is, even with Apple?s price drop both are still cheaper than Apple?s Cinema display.
That's not quite true.
Apple's monitors are the best value when they first come out. But Other makers come out with cheaper models a year or so later, and Apple doesn't lower their prices to match until shortly before they come out with new ones.
So, this could be a prelude.
I'm not so sure about the "new" specs.
Why do they do this? Why do they wait years to drop the price and then drop it 25%?
By all accounts these monitors have been overpriced for some time now, couldn't they drop a hundred here and a hundred there as the componant prices drop? It would certainly decrease the buyers remorse for people who buy before the huge cut.
I sound like I'm complaining, but I am mostly curious as to the rationale...It seems inelegant.
The monitor was $3,000 before.
oops, maybe I should have read it a little slower.
In a few days I'll download the wwdc keynote and post it on youtube or google videos or something and post the link here.
I'm pretty sure if you are not allowed to do that. It's copyright Apple. you would need permission, which you certainly won't get. Doesn't mean that you won't get away with it, but...
Apple Computer on Monday enhanced the introduction of its Mac Pro desktops by slashing prices across the aesthetically matching Cinema Display line.
Apple's 30-inch Cinema Display HD model now retails for just $1999, a price cut of $500 from $2499.
Meanwhile, the 23-inch Cinema Display HD saw a $300 reduction from $1299 down to $999.
Finally, Apple shed $100 off the cost of its non-HD 20-inch Cinema Display, bringing the model down to $699.
Keynote stream posted
Apple this afternoon also posted a pre-recorded stream of chief executive Steve Jobs' presentation this morning.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
So are we looking at new stuff or what? Lower the price to move the old to make room for new?
So are we looking at new stuff or what? Lower the price to move the old to make room for new?
Pretty much.
I'm pretty sure if you are not allowed to do that. It's copyright Apple. you would need permission, which you certainly won't get. Doesn't mean that you won't get away with it, but...
YouTube has so many of the old Apple presentations, I saw the G4 Cube in there. Either Apple hasn't noticed or they don't care.
I think it's my ISP's (or type of internet technology's) fault that I can't play streaming Quicktime (but will do streaming flash, go figure), but still, Apple's keynote feeds are useless for me. It isn't as if I can change ISPs without paying another $300/mo for a different high speed service to get to me, so I'd have to watch an unauthorized version.
YouTube has so many of the old Apple presentations, I saw the G4 Cube in there. Either Apple hasn't noticed or they don't care.
I think it's my ISP's (or type of internet technology's) fault that I can't play streaming Quicktime (but will do streaming flash, go figure), but still, Apple's keynote feeds are useless for me. It isn't as if I can change ISPs without paying another $300/mo for a different high speed service to get to me, so I'd have to watch an unauthorized version.
I can't understand, for certain, why some people have these problems. The only thing I can think of relates to the same problems VOIP is having with its deteriorating quality. The internet is NOT streaming transmission protocol friendly by nature. It is packet based. Those packets can take any route to you. However, most ISP's, as well as the backbone carriers regard streaming protocols as secondary to data transmission, and so give them lower priority. Thus, packets come in slowly, out of order, or not at all.
With the increasing traffic over the internet, these protocols are being consistently degraded. Some carriers are better than others, depending on their theory about the transmission of different protocols. I have 6Mbs from Covad with a static IP. That helps. I have no problem, even if my wife and daughter are on at the same time. But, Covad has always been good with this, even when they just offered lower speeds.
Apple may not care about some of them (video's) because they gave a lot of them out on CD's over the years. But they might care about a current re-broadcast such as this.
Of course, watching an unauthorized version won't get you in trouble. I was just concerned about someone putting it up though. Apple might not be happy about that person. and when Apple isn't happy...
Why is the audio ahead of the video? Do other people have that problem?
Yeah, I first noticed it when Scott first took the stage and I think it got worse from there. Pretty funny...
Hey, is that french dude, Bertrand I think his name is, great or what? I wanna see more of him in the future...
I can't understand, for certain, why some people have these problems.
My service is by satellite, not DSL or cable, which is less friendly to streaming-type data than other Internet services. I really don't have any other high speed option save a T1. I had a T1 line for a while but I couldn't justify keeping it, and the telco was trying to avoid laying in good lines to keep the service reliable.
What I really don't understand is why Apple doesn't offer a straight download, it's less succeptible to service hiccups. I don't think bandwidth is the issue because they seem pretty happy uploading 50+GB files for minor software updates.
My service is by satellite, not DSL or cable, which is less friendly to streaming-type data than other Internet services. I really don't have any other high speed option save a T1. I had a T1 line for a while but I couldn't justify keeping it, and the telco was trying to avoid laying in good lines to keep the service reliable.
What I really don't understand is why Apple doesn't offer a straight download, it's less succeptible to service hiccups. I don't think bandwidth is the issue because they seem pretty happy uploading 50+GB files for minor software updates.
Sorry for you. Satellite is worse.
Apple offers only the stream, because, as I said before, they don't want people to take it too easily, just to watch it.
If someone wants to though, they can retreive it from the browsers cache before they close the browser.
I know that doesn't help you though.
Apple offers only the stream, because, as I said before, they don't want people to take it too easily, just to watch it.
That's old media thinking though, something that shows Apple really isn't being progressive about media. It's not a for-profit product and they don't lose anything even if everyone had a direct copy. It's basically a long advertisement, a better way of thinking is to get it out there rather than trying to protect it and control it. If the point was to show off their QT streaming technology, well, it was disappointing even when I had a good internet service.
That's old media thinking though, something that shows Apple really isn't being progressive about media. It's not a for-profit product and they don't lose anything even if everyone had a direct copy. It's basically a long advertisement, a better way of thinking is to get it out there rather than trying to protect it and control it. If the point was to show off their QT streaming technology, well, it was disappointing even when I had a good internet service.
They simply might no want people to chop it up, and perhaps modify it, and make fun of it.
You know, this really isn't a big think. If it were live, as it was two years ago and earlier, it would be different. But as it isn't, the interest level is much lower. I didn't bother to look at the last one until two or three months afterwards.
Again, the QT technology takes a second seat to the transmission situation of the carriers. with VOIP doing so badly ? and that's just voice, what can you expect of video?
They simply might no want people to chop it up, and perhaps modify it, and make fun of it.
You know, this really isn't a big think. If it were live, as it was two years ago and earlier, it would be different. But as it isn't, the interest level is much lower. I didn't bother to look at the last one until two or three months afterwards.
That's an illusion though, for the people that can get it, it is still possible to chop it up, modify and make fun of it but because of the choice of transmission medium, it is degraded for everyone. Personally, I wouldn't care to keep a copy for years, but I would want a good copy to play from as a time-shift rather than hope the stream is stable.
That's an illusion though, for the people that can get it, it is still possible to chop it up, modify and make fun of it but because of the choice of transmission medium, it is degraded for everyone. Personally, I wouldn't care to keep a copy for years, but I would want a good copy to play from as a time-shift rather than hope the stream is stable.
I didn't say it was impossible. That's why I mentioned that it could be retreived from the browser cache. But, it makes it more difficult.
And Apple can do nothing about the transmission medium itself.
I didn't say it was impossible. That's why I mentioned that it could be retreived from the browser cache. But, it makes it more difficult.
And Apple can do nothing about the transmission medium itself.
What I'm saying is the people that would bother going the effort to edit the video wouldn't have any problem getting a copy of the video, getting the video is still trivially easy assuming you have the connection. The people that don't care to edit the video aren't going to bother either way. In the end the effect to control it vs. the negative aspect of distributing a video file is practically nil.
Oddly enough, I've never had a problem with Flash streaming, so it would appear that Macromedia has a superior technology in that regard.
That's old media thinking though, something that shows Apple really isn't being progressive about media. It's not a for-profit product and they don't lose anything even if everyone had a direct copy. It's basically a long advertisement, a better way of thinking is to get it out there rather than trying to protect it and control it. If the point was to show off their QT streaming technology, well, it was disappointing even when I had a good internet service.
Old media thinking? Apple is the pioneer in hour-long streaming advertisements.
I suspect they want to be the sole host because it ensures the best viewing experience to the highest number of viewers. Granted, on the first day, it is always horribly bogged down. But really, their target audience isn't just us first day geeks. Instead, they want to ensure that everyone is watching a high quality stream rather than a random, cross-coded feed from elsewhere on the net.
I tried to find a torrent or a YouTube version last night because I had viewing problems. What happened? I failed, gave up, and will watch it from Apple's site tonight instead. By making this geek wait an additional day, they've ensured that everyone else over the next few months is watching a higher quality video.