Could Live-Streaming the Event Be a Demo In Disguise to Be Revealed Tomorrow?

[MICHAELSD]

Anybody remember the keynote when Apple announced that they were switching to Intel processors? When Steve announced this, he told everyone that it runs Mac OS really well, and then he smiles as the audience acknowledges that the Mac he was using during the keynote had an Intel processor.

Tomorrow Apple is streaming the keynote live for the first time ever. And not just to Macs, but there will also be iPhone and iPad streams. I could see Steve announcing the ability for users to buy/rent episodes of live shows and sports, then watch them while they're being broadcasted. Or even give viewers the ability to watch an episode of a regular show live twenty minutes after it begins airing (since there would be no commercials).

The ability to stream content live to millions of people at a time (on multiple devices) would be the last thing Apple needs for iTV to replace cable boxes once every major network is in. It doesn't seem like a bad prediction to think that we'll see Steve announcing "live content streams purchaseable through iTunes. They work really well, and millions of people can watch at a time on multiple devices smoothly on most connections using a new technology developed by Apple. The live feed of this keynote?" *diabolical smile*

It's a good possibility, and Apple has showcased new technology under our noses before during a keynote. Don't say I didn't tell you if this happens tomorrow .

 

[FreeState]

It's possible. One never really knows except for I personally always get disappointed when I venture out into assumptions of that magnitude.

Speaking of assumptions, wouldn't it be great if not only Apple offers a rental at $.99 a TV show, but also a subscription so you could watch live network and cable TV via HTTP Streaming on all your devices? I'd drop my DirectTV in a second for that....

 

[yayitsezekiel]

that would be incredibly awesome...and exactly what an iTV/Apple TV needs. Plus a lot of people would probably choose that if the prices were competitive. Best of all, people could choose what they want to watch on tv

 

[Shoesy]

But surely for that you would need some sort of massive data centre...

 

[Chundles]

Pretty sure they're just doing it to shut down the whole 500+ MiFi destroying the WiFi thing they had at WWDC.

 

[ipedro]

Tomorrow Apple is streaming the keynote live for the first time ever.

It appears that you're new to the Apple universe. Keynotes were streamed live until pretty recently.

Many people assumed it was because Apple wanted to have control over what was broadcast to the world -- in essence so they could edit out any problems. This didn't pan out because video of keynotes have always included the entire keynote, including embarrassing glitches.

I think it had more to do with the technology. Watching a live keynote was hit or miss. Often it would stall and then trying to get back on midway, you'd have to be lucky to resume.

Looking at Apple's example "bip bop" stream, it is as clear as if watching a local video.

That said, I believe that this is indeed the tech that will be used on iOS rentals and iTunes.com beginning tomorrow.

 

[iHeartapple2]

It appears that you're new to the Apple universe. Keynotes were streamed live until pretty recently.

What do you call pretty recently? I do not know of any Apple events that have been streamed recently. I do not think that this is being done to keep the press off of the wifi either. I do totally agree that this is being done for illustration purposes of a new device to be announced today!

 

[MICHAELSD]

Apple must have streamed their keynotes a decade ago. I always hear people complain about Apple not streaming their keynotes live, and I assume before a few years ago, streaming something live would be painful on both ends. I know for sure that Apple had to have been streaming their keynotes live long before their milestone iPhone keynote. When was the last that was streamed?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So this live stream may indeed be some kind of mass consumption proof of concept- that lots of people could access the same video stream at the same time using this particular Apple-favored technology. It would imply that sports and local news could be delivered via this solution, which could really loosen those anchors that keeps us locked into cable/satt solutions. After all, if you can get pre-recorded shows on demand, and live events (sports) and local (news), the classic hooks for cable/satt do get loosened.

Lots of people are hoping for better pricing than cable, for some kind of all-you-can-eat subscription. I have a harder time imagining that, mostly because there are many very powerful players that likes the money flow "as is." As is, there's money in commercials AND in a slice of the subscription pie. As wanted, we seem to be craving no commercials and lower subscription costs. In this scenario somebody loses... and it wouldn't be Apple as the new middleman, nor we consumers. That seems unlikely.

Who would lose? Revenue from commercials were worth nearly $50B in revenues last year- a bad year. That's a lot of money to make up for in 99-cent rentals or smaller-than-cable subscription slices. But the bigger loser in such a scenario would be the swap of the middleman... from- say- a Comcast Cable to Apple. If Apple's motivations are really about selling hardware, they could nearly "give away" the service of becoming a new cable-like player. That would- in theory- yield lower prices for the same/similar bundle of more favored programming. Could that happen? It seems plausible that Apple would accept a lower profit on software (their version of a cable-TV subscription).

So what's the catch? Who owns the broadband that Apple's service would depend upon? Where I am, it's Comcast. If Comcast sees cable subscription revenues falling as subscribers migrate to something like this Apple solution, what will they do to make up for those falling revenues? Apple would be pumping all this video through Comcast-owned pipes. Broadband fees would go up, or there would be tiers for usage (which would also drive broadband fees up). In other words, Comcast is positioned not to lose in any scenario that depends on Comcast infrastructure. If revenue-per-subscriber starts falling in one cash stream (cable subscriptions), they will simply make up for it in another stream (broadband subscriptions). Since our local broadband sources usually amount to 1- maybe 2- players, where we going to go if they start raising rates?

I'm excited to sample the live streaming technology today through Comcast's pipes. I'm confident that it will be a feature baked right into the new TV. Since we'll be watching a live event, it will be a good proxy for the potential that this could cover the live sports and local news problems. Assuming so, all that's left is how to keep the monopolies that own the pipes from increasing fees should their lucrative cable subscription revenues start feeling the pain of the new way. If Apple could just find a way to bypass their pipes, all the pieces of a new solution could really fall into place.

 

[VespR]

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/22quicktime.html

2002 was the last live stream. And 50,000 people logged in. My guess is Apple stopped it because they got too popular and they couldn't provide a service up to par.

 

[Steve Jobs=God]

Pretty sure they're just doing it to shut down the whole 500+ MiFi destroying the WiFi thing they had at WWDC.

This man knows

 

[MICHAELSD]

Steve announced streaming video to Apple TV's, and while he didn't specifically mention the keynote's live feed, I was correct about their main reason behind streaming it:

http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-is-l...event-to-test-new-server-farm-exclusive/57337