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.
Why hasn't anybody thought of doing an audio refeed from the Keynote?
- Thread starter Calidude
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for the info. Never heard of that site before.
----------
- That's the same experience the person actually sitting there live will have. Isn't that good enough?
- Why does the mic have to be this professional super military grade mic? I've recorded lectures in college with much less and that turned out fine while this is an auditorium with pro sound
- How could somebody find you out if you conceal who is actually broadcasting the feed? Apple security is looking for cameras, not mics. Mics are hard to spot.
Ears are a lot better than a mic. You can hear a more than a mic can properly pick up.
I doubt your lectures are the same size as an Apple event. From my personal experience, it simply wouldnt be enough. Also, just a sidepoint, what good is the audio if you don't have the visuals? It might be cool, but you'd miss so much of the point of what they are saying.
They might not catch you at the time, but they certainly will after the event, once news breaks that their event was streamed live.
No, I'm talking about the coughing, typing, etc. Why are those negative factors when the people who are actually there experience those same background noises?
My lectures were held in auditoriums that were pretty big, and I used a cheap external mic on my laptop. It would be fine. You just have this weird idea that NOTHING will be heard well enough unless this super military grade spymic is used.
Some people can't sit and watch the visuals, as I said. They might be driving, or on the move in the city transit or perhaps at work but just aren't next to a computer. There's countless numbers of people out there that could benefit from an audio feed.
Not if the stream isn't associated with anybody afterwards.
In person, people have the ability to filter out noises.
That's why if you go into a crowded room with everyone talking, it's still possible to have a conversation- even if the person you're talking to isn't directly next to you.
You honestly think that if we got an audio feed from somebody in the audience, we wouldn't be able to make out what is being said from the chitchat around that person?
cyks is right about the first part, seriously try it, it's not a joke.
As for the people who cant be at a computer, is it really a necessity to hear the event as it happens? Patience would benefit them too.
And yes, Apple will find out who it's from. How would you upload it anonymously? And If you didn't gain any reputation from it, why would they do it? It's A big risk for people to take for absolutely no payoff, as well as legal risk (Apple will sue, there's little doubt about that).
Yes I'm human, I'm aware of this.
This is like the Super Bowl for Apple users. If you couldn't watch the Super Bowl live due to something else you have to do, wouldn't you turn on your car radio to hear it?
You'd put it through another service not affiliated with you and you do it for the fun of it rather than the pageviews. There's not a lot of risk here because a microphone is very difficult to detect. You don't need a giant broadcasting mic to capture the sound in an audience.
Ok.
But with the superbowl, there are commentators telling you what's happening. At the Apple event's, there is a lot of visual stuff that isn't explained, and a lot that will be missed completely.
If you go there, chances are you're there for business, not pleasure. Already that gives you incentive to not do this. Sure, there might be a lone soul who would go for giggles, but I doubt they'd care enough to share it, as is proved by the fact that it hasn't happened yet.
Maybe if it were before the 1980's... anything after that and I'd find a way to record it and watch it properly and at my own leisure.
If I absolutely had to turn it on, sure... but you're not listening to the game - you're listening to commentators discussing it. Hearing Cook say, "see how ...." doesn't do much good for the listening audience.
The iPhone is a visual device. I'd much rather a feed of only video than one of audio.... but, if forced with only those options I'd rather read or wait for the official feed.
It's still better than nothing. A lot of people will appreciate the live coverage via audio. I'm telling you. There's no reason not to want this as an option unless you yourself are Apple security.
Also, audio would be the perfect compliment to a liveblog. You'd hear what is being said live and bam, get the pictures right after, instead of looking to read what a blogger misquotes sometimes.
Yes it has. There's been video feeds where somebody is broadcasting live from a hidden camera and they get caught and kicked out.
We're just going back and forth now. My point is, there are plenty of reasons it won't happen. I'm not saying it shouldn't, I'm just pointing out why it won't.
I think that's both reason enough why someone won't do it and a reason why I wouldn't want someone to risk doing it for me.
Great. Understood. We all know the risks and the logistics of it. This thread is just about seeing if people would like this and an appeal to whoever does a pirate feed to just stick to audio and give us something rather than a video that get stopped a quarter of the way because an Apple goon grabbed their camera and kicked them out.
I don't hate choice. I hate unneccessary polls.
You seem to be confusing the existence/outcome of a poll on Macrumors with events in real life. Do we need streaming audio for keynotes? Sure, why not. Do we need a poll on Macrumors to determine what a handful of people think about it? No.
By your logic, if I post a poll about whether I might win Lotto, I will win if I get enough yes votes. When you figure how to make that happen, please let me know. Until then, maybe restrict your polls to things that have some (interesting) debateable basis, and wiseass commenters like me won't bug you with "a poll? really?"
Last edited:
Reading liveblogs requires too much attention. I prefer TWiT coverage running in the background but today Ill be on the road so an audio stream would be perfect. (Does TWiT do an audiostream over the iPhone? I prefer commentary with the stream because based on how hyper the "unbiased media" gets then you need someone outside of the RDF to reinterpret all the clapping into a realistic explanation. )
Yeah, I listen to the TWiT podcasts and will be an hour in realizing I tuned them out 30 minutes ago. Doh!
Liveblogs are better for that reason.
If something goes wrong then they can edit it out before releasing the official playback.
