Apple Nixes Live Webcast, Satellite Feed

spamguy writes "MacInTouch reports that Steve Jobs' January 11th MacWorld Expo keynote address may not be broadcast live in any way. If you were hoping to watch Stevie present the rumoured sub-$500 Mac, the Motorola phone, the Flash iPod, and/or the office suite, you now have no choice but to buy your plane tickets to San Francisco ASAP."

Comments

why?

[fyonn]

isnt it a good advert for apple when millions are tuning into live webcasts to see what's happening? it's not like it's doing them any harm is it? the news is out there.

dave

Blog

[JohnGrahamCumming]

Apple probably figured they didn't need to waste the money on the web cast because the audience will be filled with Apple fan boi bloggers uploading Jobs' comments in real time and streaming iSight video.

John.

what's the big fricken deal?

[REBloomfield]

it's being posted as a file later on, you can watch it as many damn times as you like then. Is this really bl**dy news??

Oh, come on...

[liangzai]

This is planted, just to get more attraction to the event. You don't know Mr. Jobs very well, do you?

Rumors, law suits, cancellations, more rumors... it all adds up to an exciting climax.

Re:Whaaa?

[WIAKywbfatw]

You know Roland, you'd come across as far more credible in your quest to present yourself as a journalist if you could spell simple words like "rinse" correctly.

Don't you deal with Apple news on your site? If you do then you've probably just lost a few readers by suggesting that this is "obviously only of interest to Steve Jobs and Apple devotees", and they won't all be Apple fanatics: I'm sure there are plenty of non-devotees, including the CEOs of companies like Microsoft, Adobe, RealNetworks, Creative, HP and Sun to name but a few who pay close attention to what Jobs has to say.

Re:All you need to know...

[squiggleslash]

With the greatest of respect, as I said yesterday, Bill Palmer is arrogant and doesn't exactly put together a sane argument.

This paragraph says it all:

It's not all that difficult to figure out. The eMac already is the "Switcher vehicle" that the delusionals keep talking about, they just don't know it. In delusionland, the eMac is being rejected by potential Switchers because it has a built-in monitor. But in reality, Windows users are already Switching to the eMac, in droves for that matter. All you have to do is stick your head outside the delusionland bubble for a few minutes in order to get a whiff of just how many people have already switched.

By all accounts the eMac is Apple's poorest selling Mac in the consumer sphere. Oh sure, it has some educational buyers, and probably outsells the xServe, but in terms of so-called consumer Macintoshes being bought by actual consumers, it's a lemon. It's an ugly box that forces you to have a giant 17" monitor with it at a time when ordinary users - not just geeks, not just trendy Mac users - are running out and buying LCD flat panels in droves.

I know many, many, people who will not buy a Mac because of the high cost of entry. And when I say "Well, you can always get an eMac, they start at just $800", they always point out the monitor. It's not even as if you can throw away the monitor, it's there, even if you decide not to use it. Of course, Bill "Delusional" Palmer seems to think that this is a delusion on my part, that the many, many, people saying that they've made this argument and got this reply are deluding themselves. Well, there's either something very strong in the water and Palmer is a bottled water freak, or it's Mr Palmer that's living in a fantasy world.

So your comment

It makes no sense for Apple to make, it has no market to fit in

is just plain bogus. It does have a market, it's an entry level Mac. Right now Apple does not have an actual entry level desktop Macintosh. It has a Mac built for the education market that's kind of cheap, and it has an entry level laptop, but nothing in the entry level desktop area that works for general consumers. That's why Apple's marketshare is poor at the moment, so poor it's being beaten out by GNU/Linux, currently the ultimate niche product.

As for the price, I agree it will not be $500. But those arguing that the headless iMac isn't real usually argue the product isn't real, not the price. The price is speculation. Realistically, we're looking at $600-700. At that price, it'll still be entry level, it'll still, despite the misgivings of those looking at specs alone, be low enough to attract substantial sales.