Since they're not inclined to ensure all browsers can support it (the "walled garden" principle at work), makes sense to say what it does intentionally work on, and even take minor steps to ensure unsupported platforms don't work (so they don't get hit with "well, it sorta worked but sucked on Browser X!"
The only two excuses for that are technical incompetence or purposefully insular attitude.
Edit: Downvotes are fine, but a counterargument would be more welcomed. There are dozens of live streaming services out there now that support every platform available, but Apple always insists on using their own. It backfires every year as the stream is flaky or has audio/video sync issues.
If they can't bring themselves to partner with someone else, they could at least devote the resources to fixing their own broken system.
If apple is looking to attract newcomers to their platform I think the last thing they should do is totally isolate them simply because they don't own an apple product already.
That's partly my point, but also the notoriously bad quality of the stream can't be doing much to boost the confidence of existing customers. Additionally, being in the middle of a workday, many current Apple users and fans may not have access to an Apple device right now.
It just seems like a lose/lose situation all around, but they stubbornly persist.
A big part of Apple's marketing strategy is to create an entire experience around their brand. If you don't have Apple products, you're on the "outside". This plays perfectly into that strategy.
I don't know whether it is a counterargument, but does anybody know how many users want to watch this keynote, relative to other events?
The numbers I could find are 1.3 million viewers for this year's Super Bowl, 1.7 million for USA vs Germany in the FIFA World Cup, and 81.000 simultaneous viewers for the Macworld keynote, in 2002 (https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/01/09Apple-Delivers-Re...)
I think it is safe to bet that Apple's keynotes have a larger audience nowadays than in 2002, but how large is it? Reading http://www.scribblelive.com/press-release/record-breaking-on..., I do not rule out that it has more viewers than that Super Bowl stream, which, Google and my own experience tell me, wasn't perfect, either.
So, maybe, limiting this to Safari users is their best option.
Feel free to improve this speculative line of thought by providing data.
Not really[0], they just can't be arsed to officially support the rest. But it uses HLS[1] which no browser other than Safari and Android browsers support, so you have to use an external program (e.g. VLC)
If you're just a member of the public (even one who uses Apple products), Apple is going to tell you the important consumer-facing bits of this presentation with some TV commercials later.
The rest of the stuff in the keynotes—the stuff that makes them keynotes, rather than ads—only matters to Apple developers. And I'm not sure how you'd be an Apple developer without already being able to watch this. (Even if you only develop HTML5 webapps for iOS, that still means you've got an iOS test device.)
So it says on the Apple website that only OSX Safari works and any Apple handheld. No Windows devices are compatible straight off the bat (like how it's been for all this time)
An easy workaround is this:
Download VLC Player from here: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html[1]
Install it and everything, make sure it works correctly.
Open the program. Click on Media (top left) > Open Network Stream.
You will see this screen: http://puu.sh/bqV9o.png
Paste this link into that field: http://p.events-delivery.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1503ohibasdvoihbasfdv/live/8500/8500.m3u8?x-session
That might work! But I think you're dodging some of the load-balancing intelligence in Safari, and so missing one of the important feedback loops for stream performance.
It might work---or you might find that reloading the page, you're offered new URLs.
As someone from the UK I can never watch a stream like this because of all the whooping in the audience. They just whooped and cheered at an announcement to capture your gait for medical purposes; I mean as a whole the potential is exciting but does each individual pause warrant this kind of chest-beating?
Edit: they just applauded and whooped that Apple won't see your data! WTF! Well done Apple, you're not invading our privacy!
You said you were unable to watch because you were from the UK. Are you not familiar with applause or something? I don't see the connection to where you live.
A lot of the people at the event (and the most likely source for the cheers) are Apple employees. This presentation serves as both a consumer product introduction and a company pep rally.
EDIT: Just to clarify since I got some early downvotes, this isn't some conspiracy that Apple secretly pays plants in the audience to cheer. It is a known fact that select Apple employees are invited to these keynotes and generally take up the first several rows of the audience.
I don't think it's the consumers, or the Apple employees, that do this cheering. It's the app developers whose livelihoods depend on the Apple platform.
Cheer that your privacy isn't invaded? Nah.
Cheer that you built an API that doesn't invade privacy? Nah again.
Cheer that you can make an easy no-work guarantee that you won't be invading your user's privacy if you use API X in your app, and that this is a competitive advantage against the apps on other platforms that users have to trust individually? Sure.
Because lots of people don't want their medical conditions to be known, due to fear (legitimate and otherwise) of discrimination, being thought less of, or just plain being a private person.
I'm not sure nothing is more sensitive than your medical data, but it's definitely sensitive.
Say you have an STD. Do you want to broadcast that to everyone you know? Does your neighbor deserve to know? Do your parents deserve to know? How about your boss? Should a company be able to resell that information to the highest bidder? Medical information is sensitive information.
I'm not sure which of medical or financial data is considered more sensitive legally, but I think the phrase is mostly about medical data being so inherently personal. It's just meant to invoke an emotional reaction or connection.
Medical data is significantly more sensitive. Financial data says almost nothing about you other than what money you make and how you like to spend it.
Medical data discloses your sex, drinking, smoking, drug, and physical habits, along with any mental issues, genetic pre-dispositions, where you live, who your family are, where you have worked, etc. With only a little inference you can get financial information from a person's medical records.
TLDR;
• Financial records are designed to track accurate exchanges of money.
• Medical records are designed to keep an accurate representation of you. The goal is explicitly more personal.
Right now there isn't, as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the party controlling the Congressional majority has repeatedly committed to repealing in its totality (and has voted repeatedly to do) and is actively backing repeated challenges to through the courts.
Policies can change, and information that is made public in a time of favorable policy can't retroactively be made unpublic to protect it from abuse when that policy changes.
Further, insurance discrimination isn't the only area where harmful (economically or otherwise) discrimination on the basis of medical information is a concern, and while there may be some areas where this is restricted by law, people can break laws and pursuing legal remedies is an after the fact solution that is neither guaranteed effective nor free of its own costs, but people can't discriminate based on information they don't have.
In Stallman's days it was about the code. Open source was a form of freedom. Now it's all about the data. Who cares if anyone self-hosts "OpenResearchKit" when a single entity has the health-related data of everyone else?
From the keynote, it's my understanding that Apple doesn't have access to any of your health data. It seems that your data is ultimately stored with whatever organisation is doing the study. They also emphasised that you, yourself, have access to your own data too–which is as it should be.
Didn't mean to bash Apple, just comment on how the times seem to have changed. Who the hell knows what that other "organization doing the study" does with that data, though. When it will be leaked? How will the future be, will everything be transparent to everyone or will there be the data-haves and the data-have-nots?
Instead of "access to my own data" (haha, thanks!), how about "control over my data"?
Systems would be designed (on a super low level) so that:
- There is a reliable way to delete data from all systems, including caches, backups etc.
- People get notified and asked for permission if their data is part of the tupel that could be returned as part of a specific query.
Working with personal data would feel like working in a chemical weapons factory.
I am not able to watch the actual stream right now, and maybe they covered it there, but I haven't seen mention of a fanless MBP. Apple seems to be rather specific about the way the do everything and what they say. I believe they will begin offering a regular MacBook once again.
To make the MacBook fanless, it seems that they have put in a slower processor, ditched spindle drives all together, and most likely opted for integrated graphics. Again, these are just guesses. :)
They made a point of it in the stream, saying they pulled it out to save space. The new macbook will be fanless and ventless, and seems to be a return to the mid-line white plastic macbook series.
That says MacBook, not MacBook Pro. What I was getting at is that you are trying to compare MacBooks to MacBook Pros, but I don't know if they made a distinction in the live keynote and left it out on the live feed. From what I can tell, they will be bringing back the MacBook.
I am beginning to think cutting the cord (cable) and all these services out there being available might end up costing more for the little content I actually want.
Hopefully the dust will settle and prices stabilize, lower.
Almost by definition this will happen for a lot of content. Especially if you get a lot of control over where your money goes. The only cheap content would be the content that everyone wants. Which is largely the content everyone claims not to want.
I agree. I bought a new MBA about 5 months ago and I was a little worried I was going to regret that. But after seeing this, I'm glad I didn't wait. I also really don't want to buy yet another whole new set of dongles and adapters.
Yeah, what are you supposed to do if you want to charge it at the same time as you are using a usb-device? I guess a USB hub, but that is not preferable. :/
However, fewer ports is the future and most devices are available wireless. Furthermore the MBA is not really supposed to be a stationary computer.
Okay, I understand the hard sale, with "feels" and such. However watching Christie running and checking her watch looked so awkward. If anything I would wear it with the face on the inside so that I would not need arm contortions just to view it.
However the video was a bit cringe worthy, wearing a display of wealth while "helping" the poor and downtrodden. Combined with the worst of over night advertising phrasing.
Yeah, I am not a fan, but this came off way too much late night TV ad style than I what I normally associate with Apple.
I wonder about the performance of this Apple core-m implementation. All the reviews I have read on PC implementations were catastrophic for performance and disappointing for battery life.
1) battery life:
The length of a day for apple is 9/10 hours
2) performance:
Lemma, when apple is discreet on one aspect of things, assume the worst. I don't recall hearing anything on the performance of the amazing, all 'new macbook'.
78 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 53.2 ms ] threadReally?
Usually some people will post source links which should be streamable from non-mac machines.
Edit: Downvotes are fine, but a counterargument would be more welcomed. There are dozens of live streaming services out there now that support every platform available, but Apple always insists on using their own. It backfires every year as the stream is flaky or has audio/video sync issues.
If they can't bring themselves to partner with someone else, they could at least devote the resources to fixing their own broken system.
It just seems like a lose/lose situation all around, but they stubbornly persist.
The numbers I could find are 1.3 million viewers for this year's Super Bowl, 1.7 million for USA vs Germany in the FIFA World Cup, and 81.000 simultaneous viewers for the Macworld keynote, in 2002 (https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/01/09Apple-Delivers-Re...)
I think it is safe to bet that Apple's keynotes have a larger audience nowadays than in 2002, but how large is it? Reading http://www.scribblelive.com/press-release/record-breaking-on..., I do not rule out that it has more viewers than that Super Bowl stream, which, Google and my own experience tell me, wasn't perfect, either.
So, maybe, limiting this to Safari users is their best option.
Feel free to improve this speculative line of thought by providing data.
[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/2yfqyj/watch_the_appl...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming
If you are wondering, like I just did, why it's supported on Android but not Chrome: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=54198#c1...
The rest of the stuff in the keynotes—the stuff that makes them keynotes, rather than ads—only matters to Apple developers. And I'm not sure how you'd be an Apple developer without already being able to watch this. (Even if you only develop HTML5 webapps for iOS, that still means you've got an iOS test device.)
Verge: http://live.theverge.com/apple-watch-macbook-liveblog-march-...
Gizmodo: http://live.gizmodo.com/our-apple-watch-liveblog-starts-righ...
Tech Crunch: http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/08/apple-watch-event-live-blog...
CNET: http://live.cnet.com/Event/Apples_March_9_event
Ars Technica: http://live.arstechnica.com/apples-march-9-spring-forward-ev...
Re/Code: http://recode.net/2015/03/08/liveblog-its-time-for-the-apple...
WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/03/09/apple-watch-spring-fo...
Cult of Mac: http://www.cultofmac.com/314636/apple-watch-event-liveblog/
I had some hours off because of Daylight Saving Time this past weekend in The U.S.
Copied and pasted:
It might work---or you might find that reloading the page, you're offered new URLs.
http://p.events-delivery.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1503ohibasd...
Edit: they just applauded and whooped that Apple won't see your data! WTF! Well done Apple, you're not invading our privacy!
Have you ever been to a football match?
That's actually pretty rare these days. Especially in the UK.
EDIT: Just to clarify since I got some early downvotes, this isn't some conspiracy that Apple secretly pays plants in the audience to cheer. It is a known fact that select Apple employees are invited to these keynotes and generally take up the first several rows of the audience.
Cheer that your privacy isn't invaded? Nah.
Cheer that you built an API that doesn't invade privacy? Nah again.
Cheer that you can make an easy no-work guarantee that you won't be invading your user's privacy if you use API X in your app, and that this is a competitive advantage against the apps on other platforms that users have to trust individually? Sure.
I don't get it.
Is this to do with insurance? But now there's no "prior condition" issue, so why is my medical data still sensitive?
I'm not sure nothing is more sensitive than your medical data, but it's definitely sensitive.
Medical data discloses your sex, drinking, smoking, drug, and physical habits, along with any mental issues, genetic pre-dispositions, where you live, who your family are, where you have worked, etc. With only a little inference you can get financial information from a person's medical records.
TLDR;
• Financial records are designed to track accurate exchanges of money.
• Medical records are designed to keep an accurate representation of you. The goal is explicitly more personal.
Right now there isn't, as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the party controlling the Congressional majority has repeatedly committed to repealing in its totality (and has voted repeatedly to do) and is actively backing repeated challenges to through the courts.
Policies can change, and information that is made public in a time of favorable policy can't retroactively be made unpublic to protect it from abuse when that policy changes.
Further, insurance discrimination isn't the only area where harmful (economically or otherwise) discrimination on the basis of medical information is a concern, and while there may be some areas where this is restricted by law, people can break laws and pursuing legal remedies is an after the fact solution that is neither guaranteed effective nor free of its own costs, but people can't discriminate based on information they don't have.
Instead of "access to my own data" (haha, thanks!), how about "control over my data"?
Systems would be designed (on a super low level) so that:
- There is a reliable way to delete data from all systems, including caches, backups etc.
- People get notified and asked for permission if their data is part of the tupel that could be returned as part of a specific query.
Working with personal data would feel like working in a chemical weapons factory.
How about that?
To make the MacBook fanless, it seems that they have put in a slower processor, ditched spindle drives all together, and most likely opted for integrated graphics. Again, these are just guesses. :)
Hopefully the dust will settle and prices stabilize, lower.
I like the choice that roku gives me, and doesn't tie me to any specific media store.
That's pretty terrible, it instantly turned me off :(
However, fewer ports is the future and most devices are available wireless. Furthermore the MBA is not really supposed to be a stationary computer.
However the video was a bit cringe worthy, wearing a display of wealth while "helping" the poor and downtrodden. Combined with the worst of over night advertising phrasing.
Yeah, I am not a fan, but this came off way too much late night TV ad style than I what I normally associate with Apple.
> Christy Turlington Burns is running by a giraffe in this video, but she can't see it because she's staring at the coach on her wrist.
> Apple has reached the "forced fake Q&A with celebrities" portion of its keynote lifecycle.
> I'm just saying that you could put this part of the event directly into any Samsung event, and it would be exactly the same.
1) battery life: The length of a day for apple is 9/10 hours
2) performance: Lemma, when apple is discreet on one aspect of things, assume the worst. I don't recall hearing anything on the performance of the amazing, all 'new macbook'.