Apple Event October 2014 Live Stream

http://www.apple.com/apple-events/2014-oct-event/

by qnk • 12 years ago

55 63 12 years ago

apple.com

thedangler• 12 years ago

Alternative streaming links?

kmfrk• 12 years ago

Apple TV, wonder whether there's a dedicated app that can be used for iOS like with WWDC.

I think TWiT do live commentary or something.

borkt• 12 years ago

Yeah they just irrelevant jokes and laugh at each other so you can't actually hear what is going on. They have really gone downhill with their live coverage.

pkallberg2• 12 years ago

Hopefully no Chinese voiceover this time :)

sidcool• 12 years ago

Same old question. How in the world do I watch it on a Windows PC?

pkallberg2• 12 years ago

Looks like VLC is the way to go - try this: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/heres-watch-apples-ipad-event-w...

Direct link: http://p.events-delivery.apple.com.edgesuite.net/14pijnadfpv...

grecy• 12 years ago

Someone will post a VLC streaming link shortly.. hold tight

ynniv3• 12 years ago

http://9to5mac.com/community/how-to-stream-apples-oct-16-ipa...

clamprecht• 12 years ago

Does anyone know if there is a technical reason they make this Safari-only?

ynniv3• 12 years ago

The other platforms want people to use a more complicated streaming format?

ynniv3• 12 years ago

I guess the sarcasm isn't appreciated, but HLS is a simple enough protocol that an intern could implement it. It trades latency for cacheability, which greatly reduces broadcasting costs. The only obvious reasons to not support it are political.

eknkc• 12 years ago

Uses HLS

ne0phyte• 12 years ago

They want you to buy a current gen device so you can watch what you can buy in a couple of weeks.

squigs253• 12 years ago

This creates a social class system surrounding Apple products - only those who are privileged enough to be on the Apple ecosystem are allowed to watch Apple events.

While they could definitely make all of their events streamable on a wide variety of devices, this tactic makes everyone not in the ecosystem feel as though they've been let down by the technology which they own.

It also ensures that the audience is more Apple-centric, and the first to hear the conference lectures will already be biased in favor of Apple given that they are already Apple users.

brymaster• 12 years ago

Your reply wasn't a technical one regarding the question, but I think you've been unfairly downvoted as there is actually truth in what you're saying. These are exactly the types of conversations that marketing teams at Apple would have about creating the perception around their brand.

Note: before a fervent product enthusiast thinks about hitting that downvote button, I've typed this comment from my very own MBP.

squigs253• 12 years ago

By the way, I do 100% love Apple products - all my electronics are Apple except my work computer. But there is a definitely a good reason behind why they don't let non-Apple users watch the keynote.

jmreid• 12 years ago

Uses HTTP adaptive streaming that's built into Quicktime and iOS natively. It's the same technology that MLB/NFL/NHL use to do live-streaming of games to their apps on iOS.

There is a way to get VLC to open the stream, but I haven't had to do it personally.

GHFigs• 12 years ago

Apple's new campus is powered by the outrage and impatience of people that won't download VLC or ffplay to watch their two-hour commercials before they're available on YouTube.

sogen• 12 years ago

Ars Technica Liveblog, always a nice source:

http://live.arstechnica.com/apples-october-16-2014-media-eve...

tlo• 12 years ago

MacRumors Live Coverage: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/16/october-2014-event-live/

squidi• 12 years ago

http://p.events-delivery.apple.com.edgesuite.net/14pounqefvo... for VLC Windows users

DannyBee3• 12 years ago

I wonder if gruber's secret plans for apple watch will make an appearance

_mikz• 12 years ago

Its magical.

rikkus• 12 years ago

"6x faster than other browsers at typical JavaScript on websites."

Bold claim. http://live.arstechnica.com/apples-october-16-2014-media-eve...

Would be interesting to know what the technology is behind this (if the claim is even half true).

Artemis2• 12 years ago

That's very bold, but also pretty vague given the "average website" mention.

I doubt Apple has more developers working on Safari than Google has on V8.

Zikes• 12 years ago

Safari is able to cheat by interfacing more with the OS than V8, which has to be able to run on more platforms. It's the same reason IE beats it out in certain benchmarks.

stock_toaster• 12 years ago

Would be interesting to know what the technology is behind this (if the claim is even half true).

I was thinking maybe the WebKit FTL JIT[1], but that had a claimed 35% increase in performance though....

[1] https://www.webkit.org/blog/3362/introducing-the-webkit-ftl-...

bhouston• 12 years ago

It is FTL Jit?

http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/05/safari-webkit-javascript-l...

https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/FTLJIT

Or is it something else?

DannyBee3• 12 years ago

There's no way that the FTL JIT gets involved on "typical javascript" which wouldn't run long enough.

They even say so on the blog post for the FTL JIT:

"Websites today serve large amounts of highly dynamic JavaScript code that typically runs for a relatively short time. The dominant cost in such code is the time spent loading it and the memory used to store it. "

Instead, it's more likely they have some weird benchmarks that they win on.

Everyone has their favorites, and reasons they claim they matter.

While it's been about year since i looked, most of them are just not large enough amounts of executing code to be reasonable benchmarks to argue about (they try to increase workloads bby increasing iterations, etc).

In truth, i can't fault anyone for the benchmarks they choose (except maybe regexp-dna), most are testcases extracted from the websites/programs they care about.

But this does not actually make them good benchmarks to optimize for, just good things to make fast.

The difference being, you want to pick representative benchmarks such that if you optimize for them, ideally all the cases you care about are made fast, not just the ones in the benchmarks.

For example, regex-dna (part of sunspider) is a benchmark about regular expression searching in DNA sequences (which is "not common" in webapps). To make it fast, most browsers have dedicated regular expression compilers tuned to it. This is pretty much worthless for webapps as a whole (the kinds of regexps involved do not generalize to the ones used in web apps), but it makes sunspider fast.

That's exactly what you don't want :)

benaiah• 12 years ago

Air-gap elimination in the iPad Air 2 should make this much better at use in sunlight - there's a claimed 56% reduction in reflections.

wmblaettler• 12 years ago

Also live blogged here: http://live.theverge.com/apple-ipad-live-blog/

berberous• 12 years ago

How does single image HDR work?

fudged71• 12 years ago

With access to the RAW pixel information they can artificially under- and over-exposure then map those into an HDR image.

potatolicious• 12 years ago

Your screen (and popular image formats) are 8-bits per color channel. Modern digital sensors can do 12-14 bits of useful data per color channel typically (16 for the really high end stuff).

To even save or display the image from these sensors you'd have to compress the 12/14-bit color range into 8-bit anyways. Single-image HDR is simply the ability to tweak this transform to your benefit.

joemaller1• 12 years ago

The signal-to-noise ratio in this event is terrible so far.

epmatsw2• 12 years ago

Hmm. iPad Mini, iPad Mini 2, iPad Mini 3, iPad Air, and iPad Air 2. Wasn't one of the key insights that Steve Jobs had when he returned to Apple that they had too many variations of their products with no obvious differentiation? As much as I love their products, it seems like they're rapidly slipping back down that slope...

tvon2• 12 years ago

Eh, I can see that argument with the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6+, but in this case we're just talking about keeping older products alive at a lower price point.

Steko3• 12 years ago

iPod Classic, iPod Mini, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle, iPod Touch...

epmatsw2• 12 years ago

I guess the counter argument to that would be that those products are all clearly differentiated by their names and appearances. The iPad Mini 1-3 all look identical barring close inspection, and their names give no indication of what the differences are other than that one has a higher number.

aikah• 12 years ago

There was a clear difference between these products,despite the "iPod" label. Can you mix an Nano with a Classic ? A shuffle with a touch ? now ask most people the difference between an iPad Air and another iPad Air 2 ? touch id ? really ?

pavlov• 12 years ago

The mid-'90s Apple product line was an unholy mess. There were dozens of Performas and PowerMacs with random 4-digit model numbers. The PowerMac 7600CD might be succeeded by the PowerMac 7300, which would be sold as the Performa 5200 in another part of the world... [1]

An incrementing product revision number is a bit boring, but certainly nowhere near those depths of marketing misery.

[1] This example is semi-fictional because nobody could possibly remember the actual model numbers from that era.

wiredfool2• 12 years ago

No, there are a set of ipads that cover the price range from $249 to $800+, every 50 or $100. Every step up has a clear benefit -- Faster, bigger, more storage, cellular.

I'm more worried about the original iPad Air still in the lineup. I've got an ipad2, and it's feeling old and slow (without having a newer one to compare to). That's not going to be a long term good purchase.

wiredfool2• 12 years ago

s/Air/mini/ up there. Otherwise, doesn't make much sense.

Someone• 12 years ago

I agree, but as a counterpoint, part of the argument was that they couldn't afford to spread their design resources too thin.

Now they could afford to, but they don't. Yes, it takes effort to keep those old lines running, but the guys doing that needn't even talk to the ones designing the new versions and the software running on it (those older generations get left behind, OS-wise, don't they?)

Steko3• 12 years ago

27" Retina iMac at 5120x2880 which they are calling "5K"

edit: Dell previewed a similar screen last month[1] a "world first" but won't ship til December (5K iMac shipping today if I heard right?). No price on Dell screen, rumor was $2,500 but Apple's throwing in a computer for the same price so I doubt that will hold up.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8272702

seanmcdirmid3• 12 years ago

Finally.

Really, I'll probably buy this, but it's more important that it takes desktop computing is finally moving on from ridiculous low res displays.

Steko3• 12 years ago

I didn't see a mention that it's 60 Hz yet but we'll see.

slantyyz2• 12 years ago

> ridiculous low res displays.

Like many people, my vision took a hit when I turned 40, so I have to disagree with that statement. While YMMV, 1080p on a 27" monitor is not ridiculously low res for the average person.

Anything between 100-130 dpi is more than fine enough with me at my viewing distances.

Speaking only for my use case -- when I'm doing work, I'd prefer a >= 4K resolution that gives me more real estate over one that gives me denser pixels, which is why I would choose a 40" 4K monitor over a 28" 4K monitor, because the pixels on the smaller monitor are simply wasted on my aging eyes.

To me, the main beneficiaries of the new 5K iMac are designers and people who work with (or care a lot about) video and photography. I left gamers out of the list, because I don't know if the R9 M290X is actually powerful enough to drive a game at native res at 60fps.

roeme2• 12 years ago

but it's more important that it takes desktop computing is finally moving on from ridiculous low res displays.

The question is, how long will it take until high res becomes available broadly? Apple had to create their own¹ display here, and I doubt they'll share the secret sauce lightly. I suspect they're already holding back, since I'm in search for some Hi-Res desktop display for some time now. Almost everybody cheats by simply upping the display size, instead of the pixel density. And it's not like the retina display hasn't been around for 2 years now!

It's either that, or they're simply scooping up all or a significant amount of the available supply for themselves.

¹To some extent, i.e. at least the controller chip

tvon2• 12 years ago

mhm, no stand-alone display? I'd get one of those, not getting an iMac though.

josho• 12 years ago

I'm sure that will come when the MacBooks have the power to drive a 5k display.

zwily• 12 years ago

Look for new MBPs with Thunderbolt 3 next year, along with a Thunderbolt 5k display.

hamstergene• 12 years ago

I don't think one is even possible until Intel releases Thunderbolt 3.

Transferring True-color 5120x2880 at 60 fps requires at least 25GBit/s connection, and no existing connections (on shipped computers) can handle that. The best ones currently are Thunderbolt 2 with 20 GBps, and DisplayPort 1.2 with 17GBps.

Only just a few weeks ago, DisplayPort 1.3 was released, which tops 32Gbps, and upcoming Thunderbolt 3 is promising 40 Gbps. Those two are finally making honest-60fps 27" Retina Display possible, so it should not be long until we see one. (Though of course that will require Apple to update all Macs with Thunderbolt 3 or DP 1.3 ports first)

jasode• 12 years ago

New iMac with Retina 5K starts at $2499.

That's an enticing price if Anandtech's guess[1] of $2500 for the (yet unreleased) Dell 5120x2880 monitor is accurate. The Dell display doesn't include a Mac computer inside it. If Dell had to recalibrate its price in response to Apple's announcement, would it be something like $1899 street price?

EDIT to add: I find it interesting to compare this new display announcement to the CinemaDisplay 10 years ago. When Apple debuted the 30" 2560x1600 CinemaDisplay in June 2004, no other major manufacturer had a comparable display. Dell didn't introduce their 2560x1600 3007WFP until January 2006. Apple was the only player for that high resolution and that strength was reflected in the price: $3299. It stayed at that price for over a year (Apple finally lowered it to $2499 in October 2005). Today, Dell announced their 5k monitor 6 weeks before Apple. I guess it's getting harder and harder these days for Apple to create products that catches their competitors else off guard.

[1]http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-u...

pdabbadabba• 12 years ago

Am I the only one who, when he sees the side shot of the Apple product line up [http://d35lb3dl296zwu.cloudfront.net/uploads/photo/image/183...] just sees the word: "oil!"?

Edit: For all those down-modders out there, I suppose I should clarify that I'm not making any sort of environmental point. (Though I suppose a person might.) I own several Apple products myself (and probably soon a few more) and while I think the tech/consumer-electronics industry has a lot of work to do to even approach sustainability, I don't think there's any reason to single Apple out for criticism. I am a bit surprised, though, that nobody at Apple thought writing out the word "oil" with their products was a bad idea given their past troubles with Greenpeace.

hayksaakian• 12 years ago

New Mac Mini @ 499$ lowers the barrier to entry for mac/ios development.

(Yes there was always the resale market, but apple is driving down the price overall. You won't find a used mac mini over 499)

Apple Event October 2014 Live Stream

Related Stories