Honestly, I think the question is "when are people going to realise they don't really need to go?". Videos of the talks are being put online, and while access to engineers is great, the majority of people probably wouldn't need/want it anyway.

Same as Google IO, these events have become like popular concerts- people leap on tickets because they know they're going to sell out, not because they've thought through why they'd want them.

The one on one with apple developers can actually be very much worth the 1600 alone.

For some, yes. Not for everyone.

The networking opportunities are worth it for anyone who even thinks they might want to do this professionally. The sessions are the second least interesting thing about the conference. (The least interesting thing being the free "food".)

Totally agree, after my first WWDC I walked away thinking if tickets cost $10,000 I would still go. The 1-on-1 with the Apple designers and the 1-on-1 in their technical assistance pits are _priceless_, literally, you can't get that anywhere else at any price.

My understanding that the limiting factor in WWDC size has been the number of Apple engineers, not physical venue constraints.

Bigger than Moscone? Cowboys Stadium for the keynote?

Apple still only uses Moscone West (at least as of last year). They could also use Moscone North & South as the big conferences do (Oracle OpenWorld/Dreamforce/etc)

The problem is still room sizes. You would almost need to mirror the conference in each venue. The Apple engineer area/cafeteria etc. couldn't really hold any more.

Moscone North alone would be an improvement from Moscone West. Heck, just take over all of Moscone for the week!

I've been told the reason the event has been kept small is to maintain the same ratio of Apple developers to attendees. But I think that overstates the value of the Apple devs a bit. The attendees at this event really are one of a kind.

They haven't done the traditional post-session question & answer time in years, so other than the "labs", there is no interaction with the Apple engineers. They could set up a more stringent reservation system for the labs and sell more conference tickets if they wanted.

But, like another poster said, selling out in under 2 minutes makes them look good.

The limitation isn't really the venue. While the sessions are useful they're made available online and the patterns suggested become common practice pretty quickly.

In my experience the value of WWDC is getting to spend time doing Q+A with Apple engineers, and moving to a bigger venue with more competition for engineers reduces the overall value of the conference rather than increasing it.

Why would they do that? Selling out in two minutes makes them look good, and the limited number of slots make the attendees feel like they're special.

Are you suggesting that the reason they aren't moving to a new venue is because getting their tickets sold out quickly makes them look good and the attendees feel special? As opposed to countless logistical concerns that come with organizing an event of this magnitude and importance?

I'll give you a moment to let the sheer stupidity of your suggestion sink in.

I'm not saying that it's the ONLY reason. I am saying that it is A reason.

OTOH, if you start getting the "wrong" type of attendees, the conference becomes less valuable for everyone. For instance, marketers who sign up just to network with the 5000 developers and don't bother going to a single session.

Why did they have so many tickets available back when it wasn't selling out, if this is such a good idea?