Apple to Provide Live Video Streaming of September 1 Event | Hacker News Reader

Apple to Provide Live Video Streaming of September 1 Event

apple.com

35 pointsPeterRosdahl40 comments

I love how unambiguous Apple is about their feelings on their own products in press releases. Consider Microsoft:

> Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq “MSFT”) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential.

Now Apple:

> Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork, and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple is reinventing the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced its magical iPad which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices.

Love or hate, they've left their mark on this place.

Though there are only two opinionated words in there: calling the iPad "magical" and their computers the "best"

To me, though, those two opinions seem no sillier than Microsoft's claim that their software helps people "realize their full potential."

Oh come on, you're not even trying :-)

Microsoft's sentence is a compromise written by a committee. Apple's identity statement is beautiful (even if you don't agree with it) and I would be shocked if there were more than 3 people involved in the whole process of its creation.

Each sentence starts by drawing focus to an ideal of the company, and then mentions products Apple makes according to that ideal.

1. "Designs" instead of "makes" shifts the emphasis immediately to the abstract, away from the mechanical process of assembly. There's a contrast drawn between the "personal" computers and the "professional" software. "Personal" describes what the computer is, all the time. "Professional" is just what the computer might do, and it goes away when you're done with it.

2. "Leads" would be a weasel word when relating to some market segment, but not when it's paired with "revolution." Apple styles itself as a moral leader, not a business leader. "iPods" and "iTunes" are mentioned separately, maintaining the being/doing dichotomy.

3a. Abstract "reinventing" is the goal here, even though physical phones are the medium. The author realized that claiming to also lead this revolution would sound redundant, but couldn't resist using the word "revolution". So he used the adjective form "revolutionary". This is someone whose aesthetic sensibilities, acute though they are, can only minutely deflect his drive to get the word out about these revolutions.

3b. All the verbs so far have been ongoing (present progressive). The past and future are relegated to the last half of the last sentence. "Has... introduced" is technically past perfect but the adverb "recently" pulls it back toward the present. Even "the future" in this sentence is merely a noun, preceded by the present progressive verb "is defining." "The future of mobile media and computing devices" is the only category of product hanging without an Apple product to exemplify it. In this statement of identity, the distant past does not exist and the future is not fixed.

I typed all this at midnight, so it isn't very good or very thorough. But you get the idea :-)

In the spirit of picking things apart (because it is fun and edifying), let's talk about Microsoft's attempt.

> Founded in 1975, Microsoft

Nobody cares when you were founded. Now I think your company is old and out of date.

> (Nasdaq “MSFT”)

Nobody cares. If they did, they'd use Google Finance to find out.

> is the worldwide leader

Brrraaap. Worldwide and leader are both banned words. Also, are you really a world-wide leader if your market cap is trailing your biggest competitor? I guess that depends how you define it . . .

> in software, services and solutions

Oh, God, not solutions. Services is almost as bad.

> that help people and businesses realize their full potential.

This is sufficiently abstract that it could not possibly offend nor inspire anyone. I've never bought something because it helped me "realize my potential." I've bought things to smash noobs, yes, or to hack on sweet projects, or to write the next great American novel. But never to realize my full potential. This phrase belongs on the back of a self-help book.

To be fair, Microsoft has done a very good job of working towards actualization of their original very audacious mission statement.

"I want to have a computer on every desk and in every home, all running Microsoft software." - Bill Gates

"revolutionary" counts as opinionated (at least in my opinion...).

You don't think that the iPhone single handedly redefined what the modern mobile experience is all about? (You certainly don't have to, but I assumed that was a reasonably uncontentious viewpoint now.)

Oh, well I didn't think any of it was silly. The magical bit might have been slightly over the top, but I agree with everything else they said.

If they were resumes, Apple would get the job.

...and if they were bio's on an online dating site, I would think Apple is a self-obsessed douchebag

(disclaimer: typing this on a macbook)

Probably. But I was leaning more towards, listing specific accomplishments instead of generic business-y words.

(Disclaimer: typing this on an iPad)

     help people and businesses realize their full potential

and

     Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork, and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple is reinventing the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced its magical iPad which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices

Maybe It's personal but somehow "helping people realize their full potential" sounds much more worthy cause, while Apple sounds more like a fashionable gadget manufacturer.

Consider Google they dont claim to be creators of Best Search Engine and Great email service, rather its "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

I guess different things resonate with different people, but to me MS's line sounds tepid and uninteresting, while Apple's is something concrete that I can agree to.

I found Apple's self-description to be a little over the top.

But hey, it's PR.

Neat, the live stream returns. Does anyone know when they stopped doing that? It will be interesting to see whether the stream holds up or crumbles.

Steve Jobs had problems accessing the web on the new iPhone during his last presentation because of all the devices with wifi and the mifis in the audience. Could the live stream be a reaction to that? (With a live stream in place larger parts of the press will probably be ok with stricter rules with regard to wifi or mifi usage. If the stream holds up all the live blogging is kinda pointless.)

..larger parts of the press will probably be ok with stricter rules with regard to wifi or mifi usage..

I don't think they'll be happy. If the stream holds up all the live blogging is kinda pointless hits the nail on the head as to why.

You might just be right. Large parts of the tech press probably aren’t happy that they can now pay much more attention and do critical and profound write ups afterwards. They would much rather just transcribe every word Jobs says and frantically upload photos :-)

(It probably costs the tech sites a lot of page views, so I can certainly understand why they wouldn’t be happy about it.)

Large parts of the tech press probably aren’t happy that they can now pay much more attention and do critical and profound write ups afterwards.

They're journalists. Their job is to gather information. I'd be surprised if the only way a site like Ars Technica or TUAW could get information is by waiting for a stream from Apple. The point of videos is for everyone else who isn't a journalist and didn't get invited to a special event. Not to help journalists do their work.

Avoiding the middle man in the event coverage is certainly the main reason for Apple to do the live stream. It's worth not having negative comments!

I think they stopped in late 2004 or early 2005. It's a lot easier to do nowadays, weird that it took so long.

"Viewing requires either a Mac® running Safari® on Mac OS® X version 10.6 Snow Leopard®, an iPhone® or iPod touch® running iOS 3.0 or higher, or an iPad™."

I guess windows and linux users need not apply.

I believe the VLC folks are working on HTTP live streaming support. Microsoft has implemented it in SilverLight but not in WMP yet. I'm sure Apple is (partly) doing this to kickstart the standard.

VLC supports playback already at least on Linux. I believe Microsoft is just using the same name to describe what they are doing in SilverLight but it isn't based on Apple's spec.

I'm sure this has a lot to do with the broadcasters supporting it already for the iPad. Some of them have done so since before launch. The new Apple TV platform will surely build on top of that and I'm guessing you will get to see the same iPad CBS app running on a TV.

Pretty funny how that sentence is preceded by "based on open standards".

It could simply be that no one else has implemented those open standards. Apple isn't responsible for adding support to other platforms, so it's technically accurate if the standards are indeed open, regardless of whether other people have chosen to implement them.

It's just a draft yet so it's not an open standard yet http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-...

So, is HTML5 not an open standard either? I had understood that in the common parlance it was.

We're kind of splitting hairs at this point, but HTML5's standardization is a foregone conclusion given that it is backed by all major browsers. This protocol from Apple is just a proposal and it may never be adopted by other vendors or any standards body, which would leave it as an open non-standard protocol.

Cool, thanks for the info. I guess if it's splitting hairs, then Apple is at least reasonably justified in making the claim they do.

So why do people go after Microsoft when one can save to .docx format which is based on a real open standard

I don't have much first-hand knowledge of that subject, but here is what I have read.

docx:

   * Is horrifically complicated.
   * Is not likely to ever be completely implemented by any third party.
   * Does not accurately describe the behavior of MS Office.
   * Was rammed through the standards process in a way that demonstrated partisanship more than technical merit.

Whereas this offering by Apple does not seem to exhibit any of those properties.

Office Open XML is a pretty contentious standard: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Ope...

HTTP Live Streaming uses standard HTTP transactions and has been submitted as an internet draft with the intention of becoming an open standard [1].

Is there an HTTP Live Streaming client for Linux?

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-...

HTTP Live Streaming is intended to be part of the VLC 1.2 release, it's available in the current nightly builds right I believe.

It seems that people using windows or linux won't be able to watch the live stream which would be broadcasted on service based on "open standards"

Quote from the release: "Apple® will broadcast its September 1 event online using Apple’s industry-leading HTTP Live Streaming, which is based on open standards. Viewing requires either a Mac® running Safari® on Mac OS® X version 10.6 Snow Leopard®, an iPhone® or iPod touch® running iOS 3.0 or higher, or an iPad™"

Amazing, they completely turn that first paragraph into a huge oxymoron.

Let's see, we have this beautiful HTTP Live Streaming technology based on open standards but somehow it can only be appreciated on a Mac or iPhone...

This must be one of those standards hated by everyone else...

And it'll probably make use of an 'open' codec patented to hell, in other words, it's open if you buy apple.

Is it just me, or are there more (R) and TM symbols in this press release than is usual for Apple PR?

Appletv?

Does anyone think the (rumored) new touch screen iPod Nano with be capable of running "Nano apps"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com