Apple has posted a page where the keynote for the WWDC 2003 will be hosted.
The stream will not be available live, but only shortly after the event:
The stream will not be available live, but only shortly after the event:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WWDC 2003 Keynote Stream
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
well, it's better than nothing i suppose...i wish i had the money to go...oh well!
today, sat, sun, and then it's on monday right? the tention is building ::wink wink:: bigger than all the rumor sites maybe? we'll see...
have fun all, i'm gone for a couple of days, but to those that wanted game help, just e-mail me and i'll get back to you!
today, sat, sun, and then it's on monday right? the tention is building ::wink wink:: bigger than all the rumor sites maybe? we'll see...
have fun all, i'm gone for a couple of days, but to those that wanted game help, just e-mail me and i'll get back to you!
Ah, well, then it will be interesting how we get our updates from the KeyNote - so who's going to have the up to the minute info?
Arn, you got any representatives at WWDC?
D
Arn, you got any representatives at WWDC?
D
I'll be in the Airport at New york getting ready to come home at the time of the keynote. When i get back I will run up too my computer, go to apple.com, look at the stuff, then sit back and watch the keynote.
I don't understand... why would there by 44 negative reviews on this news? Do people not want it streamed at all?
I know it'd be great to have it streamed live but this is better than nothing.
I know it'd be great to have it streamed live but this is better than nothing.
Most of the people that voted negative were probably still hoping for it to be webcast live, and since this says it won't be webcast live, then this is negative news for those people (since they chose to look at it that way).
I voted positive.
--Fred
Although it's annoying it's not live, Apple tends to give a higher quality stream than other sites, and it also allows people who are at work to watch it when they get home. I can see it now:
"Coming to the pub James?"
"No. I'm rushing home to watch a man sell me new computers and operating system"
"Ah, right, well OK then"
Does anyone know if the iTunes music store presentation is still on the Apple site? Do you know the link?
AppleMatt
"Coming to the pub James?"
"No. I'm rushing home to watch a man sell me new computers and operating system"
"Ah, right, well OK then"
Does anyone know if the iTunes music store presentation is still on the Apple site? Do you know the link?
AppleMatt
i hope i can se it live at the palisades store. if not, i will wait until the stream is up and watch that only until that's over.
sorry, i want to be surprised
sorry, i want to be surprised
I think if they did broadcast it live, people wouldn't get a good quality stream. Imagine how many people are actually looking forward to this! Waiting an hour or so to watch it doesn't seem unreasonable. Heck, Dell and the others definitely don't have streams of their product annoucements. Oh, that's right, no one cares.
Although Denver is only an hour away, I don't think I'm going. I'll wait for the broadcast on Apple's site.
Bring me a 1.2/1.4 GHZ 970 15" PowerBook baby! Don't flame me, its just what I want.
Although Denver is only an hour away, I don't think I'm going. I'll wait for the broadcast on Apple's site.
Bring me a 1.2/1.4 GHZ 970 15" PowerBook baby! Don't flame me, its just what I want.
When is Steve going to be done with the Keynote? Anyone have a ballpark estimate? I know the stream won't be up right away, but I want to make sure I see it as early as possible.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/specialmusicevent/
Most of the past keynote webcasts are available here:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/recent/events.html
sweet this is good news. better than nothing, and seeing the Keynote is always better than just reading or hearing about it.
MacRumors chicken for pulling specs!
You people are cowards for pulling the "Opps, it was a publicity stunt" Apple published specs! Unless you people are cowards or are more interested in kissing Apple butt, that info was "public knowledge" once it was published, accident or not (I don't think it was, I think it was another "Vivendi Music" publicity stunt, something Used Car Apple is becoming known more and more for).
You people are cowards for pulling the "Opps, it was a publicity stunt" Apple published specs! Unless you people are cowards or are more interested in kissing Apple butt, that info was "public knowledge" once it was published, accident or not (I don't think it was, I think it was another "Vivendi Music" publicity stunt, something Used Car Apple is becoming known more and more for).
Re: MacRumors cowards for pulling specs!
get a clue. 2 things:
1. the idea that the info was "public knowledge" is debatable. can someone just copy and paste articles from cnn.com at will and put it on their own site? granted, this is not the same situation, but my point is simply that it's not so clear cut.. though, apple's tone as that of more of a request than "telling" people to take it down would suggest that they didn't have much legal backing..
2. it was pulled out of respect for apple's wishes. don't like it? don't come here.
get a clue. 2 things:
1. the idea that the info was "public knowledge" is debatable. can someone just copy and paste articles from cnn.com at will and put it on their own site? granted, this is not the same situation, but my point is simply that it's not so clear cut.. though, apple's tone as that of more of a request than "telling" people to take it down would suggest that they didn't have much legal backing..
2. it was pulled out of respect for apple's wishes. don't like it? don't come here.
Better learn your Internet law, first
You better learn your Internet law first. According to a rulling by the Supreme Court in 2002, you may "Quote" materail from an internet source if published on a public page, so long as your are not selling the information for profit.
It's the law dude, learn it!
Ps, Demi-god doesn't make YOU god!
You better learn your Internet law first. According to a rulling by the Supreme Court in 2002, you may "Quote" materail from an internet source if published on a public page, so long as your are not selling the information for profit.
It's the law dude, learn it!
Ps, Demi-god doesn't make YOU god!
I don't think MacRumors wants to make Apple angry; I would think, being loyal Macintosh users, that they would in fact respect Apple's request to remove the specifications whether it was legal or not. Just because you can do something certainly doesn't mean that you should.
I feel kind of bad that someone at Apple screwed up, actually. Someone's going to get their ass paddled, and the guessing game's over. Steve doesn't get to make his announcements with the knowledge that not a single consumer really knows what's in store for their Power Mac line. No one wins but us rumormongers who now know four days ahead what's going to happen.
And that is a small victory.
I feel kind of bad that someone at Apple screwed up, actually. Someone's going to get their ass paddled, and the guessing game's over. Steve doesn't get to make his announcements with the knowledge that not a single consumer really knows what's in store for their Power Mac line. No one wins but us rumormongers who now know four days ahead what's going to happen.
And that is a small victory.
Re: Better learn your Internet law, first
In the Fatwallet case, Wal-Mart accused Fatwallet of copyright violations because Fatwallet posted Wal-Mart's prices on their (Fatwallet's) web site. The two parties settled out of court in December, 2002.
(I'm really sick of typing Fatwallet now.)
The general guideline is that anything that has been published is fair game for fair use, and fair use includes reporting. But stuff that hasn't been published is not automatically fair game. There are issues of trade secrets to deal with. The basic rule of thumb on trade secrets is that if you take reasonable measures to protect your secrets--in other words, if you act like they're secrets--then they're protected by law above and beyond what ordinary copyright law offers.
In this case, we're clearly dealing with a trade secret. The information was either leaked without official authorization or it was released accidentally. Mere minutes or hours later, the information had been removed from the page where it had been inadvertently made available. So when Apple comes a-knockin' with the cease-and-desist letter, you'd better listen. It's got teeth.
But as others have so well pointed out, there's no need for a C&D here. If Apple asks, we comply. That's just plain, ordinary, garden-variety courtesy. For the same reason, we don't go dumpster-diving outside Apple headquarters. We don't try to sneak into closed events. We sit and watch and observe and comment and speculate, speculate, speculate. But it's all in good fun. And posting something after Apple has asked us not to is not good fun.
Trust me. There are plenty of sites out there where you can read all the dirt you want. Go knock yourself out. Meanwhile, we'll just wait until Monday and see what happens.
I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the Fatwallet case? That never went to court, much less to the Supreme Court. But that's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that even resembles what you said.
In the Fatwallet case, Wal-Mart accused Fatwallet of copyright violations because Fatwallet posted Wal-Mart's prices on their (Fatwallet's) web site. The two parties settled out of court in December, 2002.
(I'm really sick of typing Fatwallet now.)
The general guideline is that anything that has been published is fair game for fair use, and fair use includes reporting. But stuff that hasn't been published is not automatically fair game. There are issues of trade secrets to deal with. The basic rule of thumb on trade secrets is that if you take reasonable measures to protect your secrets--in other words, if you act like they're secrets--then they're protected by law above and beyond what ordinary copyright law offers.
In this case, we're clearly dealing with a trade secret. The information was either leaked without official authorization or it was released accidentally. Mere minutes or hours later, the information had been removed from the page where it had been inadvertently made available. So when Apple comes a-knockin' with the cease-and-desist letter, you'd better listen. It's got teeth.
But as others have so well pointed out, there's no need for a C&D here. If Apple asks, we comply. That's just plain, ordinary, garden-variety courtesy. For the same reason, we don't go dumpster-diving outside Apple headquarters. We don't try to sneak into closed events. We sit and watch and observe and comment and speculate, speculate, speculate. But it's all in good fun. And posting something after Apple has asked us not to is not good fun.
Trust me. There are plenty of sites out there where you can read all the dirt you want. Go knock yourself out. Meanwhile, we'll just wait until Monday and see what happens.
apple has one though
This sucks though, because Apple does an internal quicktime stream of the keynote to employees live. Most employees watch it in a window on their computer...I don't understand why they won't do it live, unless they're worried Panther will blue-screen like Windows 95 did at its launch event.
This sucks though, because Apple does an internal quicktime stream of the keynote to employees live. Most employees watch it in a window on their computer...I don't understand why they won't do it live, unless they're worried Panther will blue-screen like Windows 95 did at its launch event.
Re: Better learn your Internet law, first
wow. you're bright.
you clearly didn't read that i said it was iffy. i didn't say it was certainly breaking a law.
and my second and more substantial point was that macrumors chose to take it down out of respect for apple's wishes
one day you might learn to respect people. once you get your head out of your..
wow. you're bright.
you clearly didn't read that i said it was iffy. i didn't say it was certainly breaking a law.
and my second and more substantial point was that macrumors chose to take it down out of respect for apple's wishes
one day you might learn to respect people. once you get your head out of your..
It's just a guess, but streaming video from a video file on a hard disk (as Apple will be doing to stream the event afterwards) seems like it might be easier and less effort to do than capturing video, and serving it to clients all over the world on-the-fly.
*shrug*
*shrug*