07:00 — Honolulu, Hawaii
10:00 — San Francisco, California
13:00 — New York, New York
14:00 — São Paulo, Brazil
18:00 — London, England
19:00 — Rome, Italy
20:00 — Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
21:00 — Moscow, Russia
22:30 — New Delhi, India
01:00 — Shanghai, China (June 11)
02:00 — Tokyo, Japan (June 11)
03:00 — Sydney, Australia (June 11)
PSA: The Microsoft E3 press conference will be live streamed at exactly the same time (though MS will start 30 min before Apple) as Apple's WWDC press conference.
A few hours afterwards the EA, Ubisoft and the Sony press conferences will commence.
Here's a great site with times (in your local time zone) and live stream links to all the E3 speeches upcoming tonight:
Yeah, I think so. I've had a look through the other feeds on ustream, and haven't found one good quality as that one but that doesn't have annoying commentators talking over the presenter. Ah well...
"Live Streaming video requires Safari 4 or later on Mac OS X v10.6 or later; Safari on iOS 4.2 or later. Streaming via Apple TV requires second- or third-generation Apple TV with software 5.0.2 or later."
The only time I use Safari myself, other than testing of course.
My wife sells Mary Kay, and for some reason, she can't login to her account using Chrome on her machine, but Safari works, so she uses Safari for the one website.
For everyone asking for a Windows or Linux live stream, last time I watched it on UStream on Win XP - it worked flawlessly, and was about ~30 seconds behind the live blogs.
If this is the guys who stream from a phone then last time they got caught about 5 times and the video/audio was pretty terrible in the auditorium wifi which is flaky. But that was a Steve Jobs keynote. Maybe Cook's will be different/more lenient.
No need to stream from a phone this year, or even be in the room. Joe Random with a Ustream account just needs to open the official stream on a Mac, then rebroadcast that to UStream. Easy.
I agree somewhat, but I think I've become somewhat institutionalised by the hierarchical approach! However, here you can blend the two and get the best of both worlds. :)
I'm pretty sure they didn't live stream last years keynote. They always record a video that is released after the keynote is finished, maybe that's what you're thinking of.
I am on windows 8, Chrome/Firefox/IE10 and even installed quicktime. I also have VLC. Does anyone know a way to stream the video? Safari is not available for windows anymore. Seems pointless to restrict a huge demographic out.
As far as I know, it will not work on Windows. From the page:
Live Streaming video requires Safari 4 or later on Mac OS X v10.6 or later; Safari on iOS 4.2 or later. Streaming via Apple TV requires second- or third-generation Apple TV with software 5.0.2 or later.
I hope you got plenty of what you asked for. It's the size of small cat with glow-in-the-dark lighting for fumbling with your USB keys under a table. Plus lots of other stuff.
So there is a new mac pro ... and it's a cylinder.
The nicest thing about a mac pro is the simple, well designed internals that made for ease of upgrade for cards and drives, and I am not sure how that will work in a cylinder...
Apple uses their HTTP Live Streaming system for this. It is essentially a refreshing m3u playlist of 10 second MP4 video chunks that are served as normal files via HTTP, over their standard CDN.
It works well as long as the playlist refreshes properly, and the data gets deployed to the CDN fast enough.
Edit: Ok, fair enough with the down mod, I made a witty remark, but seriously, how do you measure internet traffic? In photons going to designated recipients, as if they were sealed love letters?
So true. Steve Jobs saw the potential of Akamai back in 1999, when it was a small company and when most people hadn’t heard of them. Back then, Apple invested US$12.5 million in Akamai, for 5 percent of the shares of the company. (Akamai’s valuation has gone up to 36x since then)
I wonder if the Finder will finally be able to auto-adjust its font for best-fit-for-content style views. Its the 21st Century, it should be doing this by now, grr ..
The actual requirement is a video player that implements HTTP live streaming. Not sure why they don't just put the URL for that on the page. When the stream goes live I'm sure someone will post the URL here though.
I don't own or use anything that is allowed to view this, but I would still like to. I really wish Apple would change their attitude toward non-Apple users.
It's not about allowed device. It's about supported technology. Apple went all-in on HTTP live streaming, everything they make supports it, and everything they stream uses it. VLC supports it. I think silverlight does too, if you want to whip up your own player in a dead technology.
Yes, 100% seriously. They said that you can't watch the stream on non-Apple hardware, and it turns out that is completely untrue. Why is it in any way controversial for me to point this out?
"Live Streaming video requires Safari 4 or later on Mac OS X v10.6 or later; Safari on iOS 4.2 or later. Streaming via Apple TV requires second- or third-generation Apple TV with software 5.0.2 or later."
> "An open standard [1] is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it,"
Published standard: HTTP Live Streaming at IETF [2]
See also: HTTP Live Streaming at apple.com [3]
The real question is why have none of the other browsers gone on to implement what is a very efficient streaming technology. And HTTP live streaming is very web-like, there's not really any new technology there. Instead Firefox and Chrome put effort into WebRTC, which seems like a lot more work. Although I do accept that WebRTC is orthogonal to HTTP Live streaming.
It's an Apple event... why would they want to stream it on Google? Serious question (your 'everyone else' statement is begging for clari-citation-ification).
I'm not sure that YouTube would be the best choice due to the Google connection, but I do wish they would let people on non-Apple hardware watch. It just furthers my view of them as overly insular and disdainful of Windows/Linux users.
Considering this is a developer conference, and you need to have a Mac to develop iPhone or OS X apps, it seems somewhat fair to expect someone wanting to watch to be on a Mac.
Because it takes developer time and other resources to develop tools for iOS development on other platforms. Apple hasn't done it (and they don't have any interest in doing so), they focus all their efforts on the tools within their own environment.
If not for other people's efforts with Mono and such [1], C# would be equally Windows/MSVC#-only.
I believe that the problem with .net etc is that the development is done on Windows machines to run on Windows machines. iOS is different. I believe that Apple have gone out of their way to stop people from developing iOS programs on other operating systems. Similarly they have gone out of their way to block me from running OSX in a VM or on non-Apple hardware, even though there are no technical reasons why I can't (in fact you can do it, just not legally).
Entrance into the walled garden is only a couple of hundred for a used Mac mini on eBay plus the dev fee. If you can't afford that, you probably can't afford all the money you're going to lose developing an iOS app you can't afford to market.
Why is it rediculous that I want to be able to program for different plaforms from the same machine? If there were any technical reason for it I would understand, but this is just erecting artificial barriers out of greed.
> Its no different than building windows 8 mobile apps in windows.
I'm pretty sure you can do that on other operating systems.
> As for gone out of their way to prevent you from running it in a vm, they equally have no real incentive to make it easy.
They have specifically gone out of their way to prevent it. They check to make sure it is being run on Apple hardware, and you can get hacks that bypass this check. There is no technical reason why I can't run OSX in a VM on my Intel Linux machine.
You realize that when you get an osx license it says it is only valid when run on apple hardware right? That check, which is named Dont Steal OSX, is there as a pretty basic check kernel extension. They could do MUCH more, this is not going "out of their way".
This isn't that big of a deal, if you're fine with violating the license agreement continue to do so I've no concern. But don't think for a moment that it is a contractual obligation for apple to have their os run everywhere. Ignoring the contractual obligations impacts things like the gpl as well, so if we're happy to ignore this part of the license agreement we need to reflect a bit as far as what legal obligations we want to abide by.
> You realize that when you get an osx license it says it is only valid when run on apple hardware right?
Yes, that is exactly my point.
> This isn't that big of a deal
It's a big deal to me. It's the only operating system that I know of that I can't legally run on my computer.
All I'm saying is that I wish that Apple were more focused on creating the best products they can and letting people use them, rather than erecting artificial walls to keep people in and out.
> All I'm saying is that I wish that Apple were more focused
> on creating the best products they can and letting people
> use them, rather than erecting artificial walls to keep
> people in and out.
It's ironic because that's precisely what they're doing yet you don't realize it. They limit the scope of hardware that OS X is meant to run on so they don't need to spend as much time on making drivers and ensuring the millions of hardware combinations work with as few issues. Just ask Microsoft about the effort involved.
Now, if you want to make the best product possible, wouldn't you make a single piece of hardware and software made specifically for it and take it to perfection? Rather than certifying tons of 3rd party hardware and fixing associated problems.
The fact that OS X runs mostly without issues on customacs is a lucky coincidence, but Apple doesn't want to be responsible or guarantee that it'll work properly.
> if you want to make the best product possible, wouldn't you make a single piece of hardware and software made specifically for it and take it to perfection?
No, that is exactly what I wouldn't do. Apple are a rare exception where this model actually seems to work. When Steve Jobs was asked to give examples of other companies that have succeeded with the same closed model over open competitors, he couldn't come up with a single example.
> Apple doesn't want to be responsible or guarantee that it'll work properly.
They don't have to. They just have to not put up legal and technical barriers to people using it on other systems.
Please. The money Apple makes from their 30% cut is a tiny fraction of what they earn from hardware sales. It supports the operation of the App Store and makes some profit but it's never been their key moneymaker.
That would make Microsoft pretty disdainful of OS X/Linux/BSD/yada yada.. users as well, Visual Studio is not on anything but Microsoft platforms.
Both of their priorities are themselves, their customers and their developers.
If your software supports HTTP Live streaming, you can watch it. What Apple is saying is that will be using this to play and they know that the necessary support is in these devices/client software. If you can find the supporting software on your client ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming#Clients ) there's nothing stopping you from viewing it. And, the spec is published ools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming (It may not be in widespread use but it is available ).
> Visual Studio is not on anything but Microsoft platforms
That's a specific piece of software. You can write programs for Windows, Windows Phone, Linux, Android, and even OS X in Linux, but not iOS. Jetbrains have a suite of IDEs for developing applications, but the iOS one had to be gimped to only work properly on OSX.
> there's nothing stopping you from viewing it.
Yes, well it turns out that Apple lied, and you can in fact watch the stream on non-Apple hardware.
The issue I am talking about is much deeper than this - this is just one issue. It's also about, for instance, how every time someone at Apple talks about other company's products they seem to say incredibly derisive and needlessly aggressive things about them.
I'd be interested to know how many of their sales are from existing customers, I'd hypothesise more than the average tech company. I suppose to them it's not worth it but it's a shame.
Maybe everyone else doesn't work in the tech context, because E3 seem to be doing their own thing too. I'm pretty sure I remember Son and Nintendo streaming there though. In a more general context, Felix Baumgartner's jump, Coachella 2013, Al Jazaeera, IOC streamed the Olympics, Barack Obama used it, it just seems to be becoming the standard for live streaming.
I find the once-per-year installation and subsequent purging of QuickTime quite therapeutic. Is there anyone else than Apple that still serves up QuickTime video?
Did you really install it? Why? Just to take a jab at it? You should have used VLC if you are not on a Mac. The video stream is H264, not QuickTime video.
Most iOS app that shows video are using it behind the scenes.
It's even mandatory if you want to work over 3G: "If your app delivers video over cellular networks, and the video exceeds either 10 minutes duration or 5 MB of data in a five minute period, you are required to use HTTP Live Streaming. (Progressive download may be used for smaller clips.)"
Very interesting, thanks...anyone know how one might get their organization included within the ranks of the YouTube live streamers? We're using a mix of Ustream and Brightcove right now.
From what I've tried the YouTube streaming doesn't work through the Apple TV. They could probably do both methods, but I can't see Apple rushing to it.
Is it just me or have i been spoiled by the awesome conference setups from the past (e.g. Google), that I am already a bit disappointed with the beginning of this one?
The direct HTTP link posted here was still playing the keynote of last year, which I didn't notice immediately. I have no doubt my comment will still apply when it actually starts.
I truly believe that's the case. It's simply a subjective opinion, not trying to lie. I think it's better than twitter because of the reply system, whereas twitter doesn't support conversations very well. You may not think it's better, but it doesn't mean it's a lie. Although, I would love to hear your thoughts on why it's not better. :)
We actually took a lot of logo inspiration from the CNN app, instead of Path. If you had a chance to take a look at the app. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
