Apple Explains Why HomePod Was Released Again, Wi-Fi 4 Limitation, and More

[Alan Wynn]

its literally an Entirely wireless smart speaker that doesn't utilize bluetooth (from what I've read) other than on setup. It serves as a hub for HomeKit, wireless home theater audio, Siri requests, and lossless audio. How is tech that's in a 2013 MacBook Pro overkill for an entirely wireless 300$ smart speaker?

You know that 2013 MacBook Pros had screens and could stream video, right? There is no need for HomePods of any form factor to exceed the speed that 801.11N can achieve. This is not about theoretical specs, at is about having real requirements for them.

I'm not making noise for the sake of it. This isn't a YT channel, and I'm not getting paid for clicks. it's a worse product for all the reasons I laid out. But i'll format them for you this time

It's the same product, same dimensions. 5 years later, same price.

Not sure if you noticed, but there has been a fair amount of inflation over the last year, so the HomePod that was released at $350 and later had a price drop to $300, is effectively cheaper if it is sold at the same price, right?

the only improvements are

• larger screen that only displays colors

Not that interesting to me.

• decently faster processor

Substantial improvement, enables much better processing for computation audio and for video processing.

• temp/humidity sensor

Useful to many people in HomeKit environments.

• U1 Chip

Very valuable to HomeKit users and those who have Find My devices. You also left off Thread support, another important improvement for HomeKit users.

the downgrades are

• 2 less tweeters (new type of metal, so possible improvements there. Still 2 less)
• 2 less mics

You say downgrades, I say changes. I have not heard these new devices, so I have no idea if they sound better, worse or are indistinguishable from the previous ones. It is certainly possible that the new microphones coupled with the better processor provide superior speech recognition or maybe they are much worse or exactly the same. I cannot tell as I have not played with it.

• worse wifi capability (on a wireless speaker)

You seem quite fixated on this. What is it you think that you will not be able to do with 600Mb/s of WiFi bandwidth for, as you put it, "a wireless speaker". I am not talking about theoretical specs for their own sake, I want something specific that it cannot do.

I want to be clear. I understand it isn't the end of the world, and that the wifi 4 will get the job done. Its the principle, mixed with the bigger picture.

If it will do what is needed, what principle is there that is violates?

Apple made an incredible audio product - albeit niche - with the HomePod 2018. I love it, truly. It wasn't selling well and it used a processor they no longer manufactured. So they marked the price down. It still didn't sell off, so they discontinued it in order to clear stock. It worked, and people like myself bought up the remaining ones.

Then 5 years later they announce essentially the same product, with a small amount of modernization but a lot of cost cutting.

They use a much faster chip with several new features and better machine learning, into a world with substantial inflation and they sell it for the same price as the previous one. That is actually a price drop.

More audio processing, but I'd have to hear it personally to believe you can computationally process the difference of 2 tweeters. They did this for higher margins and a clear upgrade path for a product they initially made too great.

I think you mean to say: "I have no real idea why Apple did what they did, nor what the real cost/margin differences are, but I am going to complain about them and assume the absolute worst possible motivation."

Given the tech is different and things are more expensive, there are a million reasons they may have done what they did, including that they thought it was better. I do not know, I was not there nor have I even heard these speakers, so I cannot judge, but I can say that I am way less confident that your reasons are the same as Apple's reasons than you seem to be.

We don't pay apple premiums for products that are good enough, or with 12 year old tech in them.

What is 12 year old tech? The S7 chip is quite new. Would you point me to the thread where you complain about the Apple Watch using this 12 year old tech? Otherwise, unless you can provide some example of something it cannot do that it could do with the old processor but faster WiFi, you are just whining.

if this speaker Was 199, I wouldn't say a word. But this is capitalism at it's finest - sacrificing something great in the name of having a better quarterly report.

Somehow, I doubt that. Again, this is pure conjecture. The product did not sell before. This one has many features that might make it more interesting to HomeKit users.

And it frustrates me to no end to see people defending the moves, on an Apple nerd forum of all places.

What frustrates me to no end is people complaining about changes and stating what they know to be Apple's motivations when they have absolutely no idea why things were done. Your WiFi complaint is a perfect example. You have given no example as to why WiFi 5 or 6 is needed, but you know they did it is improve their margins. Maybe they decided that the improvements by using the S7 SIP were valuable and there was no loss to using WiFi 4.

The one place it should be okay to rightfully get into the weeds and criticize an increasingly - bean counting over making great products - company. instead we get into twittereqsue side A/Side B debates over fairly objective things.

I think they are making better products and more of them, so we disagree yet again.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Your understanding is a bit off, when you look at the details on each of the US carriers pages you’ll find that they’ve either just adopted Google’s app wholesale or they’re using Google’s servers. Not one of the big three have their infrastructure supporting it, they’re basically subcontracting that to Google directly.

OK granted, RCS may not be the perfect example. Would still love to be able to place an icon on my home screen where I want it and not have it snap to top left, though.

 

[CarAnalogy]

It is the thing I would notice, as it would have to be sent as an SMS to me (since I am on iOS), and none of them use SMS to chat with each other or with those of us on iOS.

You would only notice it when you sent them a picture and it actually came through at full quality, or sent a long text message that didn’t get broken up, or actually got a delivery receipt. Or of course vice versa. It was supposed to be a base upgrade to the SMS system and has sadly become a tool of corporate manipulation like so many other things.

 

[Alan Wynn]

You would only notice it when you sent them a picture and it actually came through at full quality, or sent a long text message that didn’t get broken up, or actually got a delivery receipt. Or of course vice versa.

You do not seem to understand. I neither get nor send any SMS messages to friends on Android, so I know none of them use SMS with me. They all use one of three other services: WhatsApp, Telegram and/or Signal. I also know they do not use it with each other because they had long given up on SMS in favor of the aforementioned apps.

It was supposed to be a base upgrade to the SMS system and has sadly become a tool of corporate manipulation like so many other things.

No, like many things that did not make them money, the carriers never really adopted it. Most that have, still do not support end-to-end encryption.

 

[TehFalcon]

I’m not sure if they do actual spatial audio. Being able to stream atmos audio tracks does not mean being able to replicate all the harmonic cues designed for 7.1.2 or 5.2.2 virtualization.

And I’m saying I’m not sure because I genuinely don’t know and haven’t tested this with my HomePods. If they do do that then I would say having two speakers doing good quality audio virtualization is pretty good for most listeners.

However…. If it’s just a flat stereo stream then no.

Either way, none of that prevents them from offering a multi stream audio experience using most than two speakers.

I won’t get into technicals but if you can stream a unique audio track to each speaker without limitation then you can queue up a multi track source and stream it to as many speakers in any way you like.

I suspect it’s the pain of coding for the synchronization and time code to ensure the audio plays simultaneously. It requires a bit more logic and they either haven’t the capability in processing hardware or they are just lazy or absent the talent to do so.

As an example. I’ve got essentially stupid bricks that have multichannel output in my studio. The software used for multitrack audio recording is what keeps the multiple streams in sync and allows us to send each individual track to a separate output.

There is NO MAGIC happening on the audio equipment. It’s all software.

HomePod Atmos spatial audio is really good

 

[Chriss_m]

I think both reasons are pretty obvious. For a stereo system you're always going to want matched speakers. You would never buy two different right/lefts in a home theater system. You'd also want a center channel from the same line as your right/lefts. Sure apple could work around it or let you do it anyway but why would they bother spending money to build something that isn't going to be great anyway.

On the wifi front, it's using an older wifi b/c it's using Apple Watch tech that probably only supports that Wifi. Plus it's not like streaming audio requires that much bandwidth that you need newer tech. It's fine and does the job.

Apple should hire you. This is the perfect tagline for Tim Cook's Apple: 'It's fine and does the job'. The veritable Joe Biden of tech. It's just a shame that the company's prices don't match their "fine" products.

 

[Chriss_m]

You know that 2013 MacBook Pros had screens and could stream video, right? There is no need for HomePods of any form factor to exceed the speed that 801.11N can achieve. This is not about theoretical specs, at is about having real requirements for them.

Not sure if you noticed, but there has been a fair amount of inflation over the last year, so the HomePod that was released at $350 and later had a price drop to $300, is effectively cheaper if it is sold at the same price, right?

Not that interesting to me.

Substantial improvement, enables much better processing for computation audio and for video processing.

Useful to many people in HomeKit environments.

Very valuable to HomeKit users and those who have Find My devices. You also left off Thread support, another important improvement for HomeKit users.


You say downgrades, I say changes. I have not heard these new devices, so I have no idea if they sound better, worse or are indistinguishable from the previous ones. It is certainly possible that the new microphones coupled with the better processor provide superior speech recognition or maybe they are much worse or exactly the same. I cannot tell as I have not played with it.

You seem quite fixated on this. What is it you think that you will not be able to do with 600Mb/s of WiFi bandwidth for, as you put it, "a wireless speaker". I am not talking about theoretical specs for their own sake, I want something specific that it cannot do.

If it will do what is needed, what principle is there that is violates?

They use a much faster chip with several new features and better machine learning, into a world with substantial inflation and they sell it for the same price as the previous one. That is actually a price drop.

I think you mean to say: "I have no real idea why Apple did what they did, nor what the real cost/margin differences are, but I am going to complain about them and assume the absolute worst possible motivation."

Given the tech is different and things are more expensive, there are a million reasons they may have done what they did, including that they thought it was better. I do not know, I was not there nor have I even heard these speakers, so I cannot judge, but I can say that I am way less confident that your reasons are the same as Apple's reasons than you seem to be.


What is 12 year old tech? The S7 chip is quite new. Would you point me to the thread where you complain about the Apple Watch using this 12 year old tech? Otherwise, unless you can provide some example of something it cannot do that it could do with the old processor but faster WiFi, you are just whining.

Somehow, I doubt that. Again, this is pure conjecture. The product did not sell before. This one has many features that might make it more interesting to HomeKit users.

What frustrates me to no end is people complaining about changes and stating what they know to be Apple's motivations when they have absolutely no idea why things were done. Your WiFi complaint is a perfect example. You have given no example as to why WiFi 5 or 6 is needed, but you know they did it is improve their margins. Maybe they decided that the improvements by using the S7 SIP were valuable and there was no loss to using WiFi 4.

I think they are making better products and more of them, so we disagree yet again.

Your whole thread is a justification of a stale product on the basis that it has novelty features built into it.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Your whole thread is a justification of a stale product on the basis that it has novelty features built into it.

Fascinating. It is a smart speaker that has a Thread Border Router, temperature and humidity sensors and a precision location chip. It can be paired with another one to provide stereo and Dolby Admos. What to you would make it not ”a stale product”? What competitor’s product do you consider not ”stale”? Would it be more interesting if it supported WiFi 7? If so, why? How would that provide any feature that the current devices do not?

 

[CarAnalogy]

You do not seem to understand. I neither get nor send any SMS messages to friends on Android, so I know none of them use SMS with me. They all use one of three other services: WhatsApp, Telegram and/or Signal. I also know they do not use it with each other because they had long given up on SMS in favor of the aforementioned apps.

No, like many things that did not make them money, the carriers never really adopted it. Most that have, still do not support end-to-end encryption.

It’s not just about you though. The average user doesn’t know about any of this stuff, they just know that if they text message an Android contact it sucks.

Aren’t you tired of having different apps for different contacts? Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a widely supported universal standard that didn’t suck?

I hoped things had changed by now but I do remember the network operators “investigating” RCS for a year and a half or so and then abandoning it when they realized they couldn’t upcharge for it or monetize it. That’s par for the course for this cartel we have to deal with.

I’m not arguing with you, I think we agree except that you seem to have written off RCS completely while I think there may still be a chance.

 

[Chriss_m]

Fascinating. It is a smart speaker that has a Thread Border Router, temperature and humidity sensors and a precision location chip. It can be paired with another one to provide stereo and Dolby Admos. What to you would make it not ”a stale product”? What competitor’s product do you consider not ”stale”? Would it be more interesting if it supported WiFi 7? If so, why? How would that provide any feature that the current devices do not?

What would make the speaker not stale? Well, how about improvements in sound quality? Being that it’s a speaker, I’d quite like it to sound noticeably better than version 1. Whilst I’m sure you’ll get great pleasure out of asking Siri the humidity of your living room, do you not think you might, if you‘re really, really honest, have preferred a bump in sound quality?

Being that it’s, again, a speaker, the audio quality is quite central to why I would be buying it. But if Apple is unable to improve the audio quality, which apparently they are, then how about something that advances the speaker/hub? How about a screen? How about video? How about an attempt to improve its tired design (I know Apple apparently doesn’t do new designs anymore but one can dream)? How about wireless power capability - yes, aiming high here, but a battery? How about something not intensely boring like a humidity sensor? Where is the innovation, for God’s sake.

Telling me it can do things that my several (5 year old) version 1s can already do isn’t making it sound any less stale.

 

[Alan Wynn]

It’s not just about you though. The average user doesn’t know about any of this stuff, they just know that if they text message an Android contact it sucks.

Right, and it will continue to suck until the carriers universally decide to adopt RCS with end-to-end encryption. At that point, it might stop sucking.

Aren’t you tired of having different apps for different contacts? Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a widely supported universal standard that didn’t suck?

I would be completely happy if all my contacts were on iOS. Do not really trust most of these other services, and especially do not trust the carriers or Google.

I hoped things had changed by now but I do remember the network operators “investigating” RCS for a year and a half or so and then abandoning it when they realized they couldn’t upcharge for it or monetize it. That’s par for the course for this cartel we have to deal with.

They do not really care, nor do users. Most iOS users use Messages with each other and one or more of the other services with Android Users. Most Android users, from what I can tell, moved to one or more of the other services. To the best of my knowledge, not one carrier anywhere has adopted RCS with end-to-end encryption. Most have not even adopted RCS at all. It is not really a surprise. It costs money to do, takes away information they can sell and has almost no one asking for it. Why would they bother?

I’m not arguing with you, I think we agree except that you seem to have written off RCS completely while I think there may still be a chance.

I spent a lot of time dealing with carriers in international organizations like the ITU and MWC. You see something that you think might be an interesting technology. I know the players and neither expect them to actually do anything nor would I trust them if they did. The last version of the RCS standard did not even have a way to note if a conversation was going to be covered by end-to-end encryption. Why do you want a messaging service where you cannot tell if your messages are private, only works over carrier (or Google) networks and what functionality you get would depend on where in the world you and your counter party were?

I think RCS is like most carrier created technologies, an inferior mess and I do not want anything happening that threatens the benefits I get with Messages.

Just to be clear, what Google is calling RCS, is not really RCS, but their proprietary version of it. They do not even have open APIs for their version. If you want to read more about it, here is an article from Ars Technica that talks about it.

 

[Alan Wynn]

What would make the speaker not stale? Well, how about improvements in sound quality?

Given that it is a computational audio device, improving the CPU and machine learning hardware are likely to have the biggest impact on sound quality. I will wait to hear how it sounds before I judge it.

Being that it’s a speaker, I’d quite like it to sound noticeably better than version 1. Whilst I’m sure you’ll get great pleasure out of asking Siri the humidity of your living room, do you not think you might, if you‘re really, really honest, have preferred a bump in sound quality?

You keep treating this as if it is single purpose device. It is a smart home product and providing services that improve is usefulness as such are important to me. I do not ask Siri the temperature or humidity in any of my rooms because I set up automations that keep it at levels that are comfortable for me. To do that I need sensors, and having those sensors in devices that provide me other services is a big win.

Being “really, really honest”, I was pretty happy with my first generation HomePods and I am not sure that I would be able to hear a “bump in sound quality”. I love computational audio, but my primary viewing room has many speakers and a Denon amp.

Being that it’s, again, a speaker, the audio quality is quite central to why I would be buying it. But if Apple is unable to improve the audio quality, which apparently they are, then how about something that advances the speaker/hub?

Temperature, humidity, precision location (U1), Thread radios, faster CPUs and more powerful machine learning all improve the function as a smart home device.

How about a screen?

Funny, I missed all your posts in the thread excitedly discussing the rumors about Apple building a smart home display.

How about video?

If you mean something other than a smart display, that is already covered will by the AppleTV.

How about an attempt to improve its tired design (I know Apple apparently doesn’t do new designs anymore but one can dream)?

Given that everything Apple seems to do is so tired, I am surprised you even care. They are a has been company not building anything you would want.

How about wireless power capability - yes, aiming high here, but a battery?

What do you even mean by wireless power in this context and how would it improve a high end smart speaker? Most people use the term to describe short range inductive charging, and I am not sure why that would be beneficial in this context. How long would you expect your high end battery powered speaker to last on a charge? What is your use case? More importantly, why do you think that would be the same product category as this device?

How about something not intensely boring like a humidity sensor? Where is the innovation, for God’s sake.

Telling me it can do things that my several (5 year old) version 1s can already do isn’t making it sound any less stale.

Your first generation had a Thread Radio? It had precision location services? It provided HomeKit temperature and humidity information for your HomeKit automations?

Wow, yours was much cooler than mine. I can understand why you are so upset. The rest of us got the ones that Apple released commercially that did not have any of those features. This is an incremental update to an existing product. What you seem to want is something totally different and unrelated.

 

[sjsharksfan12]

I remember when backwards compatibility was normal in the Tech world. Microsoft perfected the thing with it's office products (I'm sure someone did it better but Microsoft was the first to come to mind). To say that a newer homepod cannot be compatible with an older model doesn't make sense to me. The newer model should be better, yes, but you have the older model as a template. What if I didn't care about the new and great sound quality and just wanted to pair my original (Which Apple discontinued) with another Homepod. To say I can't do that with a newer version that should be able to match the older version seems like a problem for the newer version.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Someone here already explained the Wifi 4 was because the system on a chip they chose to get a faster processor had Wifi 4. That’s the real answer. This answer is nothing but also makes me wonder if the marketing person doesn’t know.

I don’t think they put the entire thing together and then went, “But what processor do we give it?” It was actually very likely something more like a decision made during the design phase. It could have went something like…

“We’re going to want a more powerful processor.”
“Right, with greater performance we can model more in software, requiring fewer physical tweeters.”
“So, like an updated A-series chip?
“Maybe, but, think about it, do we NEED A-series? What do we get with A series that we wouldn’t get with an S series?”
“WiFi 5?”
“Right, but remember WiFi 5 on the previous one, that wasn’t a ‘WE NEED THIS’ decision. It was a ‘it comes with the processor’ decision. Our original specs called for ’at least’ WiFi 4.”
“So, go with an S series?”
“I don’t see why not.”
“What about the folks that are going to complain about us going BACKWARDS with WiFi?”
“If someone is on the internet talking about the HomePod having gone backwards with WiFi, what is the MOST IMPORTANT thing that they’re actively doing that they might not have been doing otherwise?”
“Ah, letting folks KNOW that there’s a new HomePod! It’s perfect.”

 

[Unregistered 4U]

""HomePod features Wi-Fi 4 connectivity that allows us to target exactly what works best in the entire system," translation: We'll use old standards so we can keep you shmucks updating each year.

Each year? Then they missed a year.

 

[dwaite]

In other words a bunch of lame marketing speak that tries to obfuscate real reasons for wifi 4 and lack of stereo mating.

Ok, "real" reasons, sure

Wifi 4: They wanted Thread support more than they wanted Wifi6 support, both for parity with the features of the Mini and because there's no need for Wifi6 for audio bandwidth. Unless someone has saturated their Wifi6 network it makes no discernible difference. Nobody raised a stink that the Mini has used Wifi4 for years. It wasn't worth raising the cost of the speaker so that people who had no intention of buying the product would complain less about feature checkboxes.

Pairs: It would limit their ability to make things sound good because one doesn't support the same audio processing or capabilities (e.g. spatial audio). And, why write a bunch of code to support a rare configuration involving a product that was end of manufacturing two years ago? The problem will solve itself in time due to attrition.

If the Mini 2 is anything other than an incremental upgrade to a newer SoC, it likely won't support pairs either. That will be a much more interesting conversation.

 

[dwaite]

They heard requests for a new homepod, but not requests for the ability to place an icon on my screen where I want it? Or for RCS? Or any of the other things people have been begging them for loudly and publicly?

I'm sure they'll put their audio engineers right on a RCS app. You'll love its fidelity.

 

[Chriss_m]

Given that it is a computational audio device, improving the CPU and machine learning hardware are likely to have the biggest impact on sound quality. I will wait to hear how it sounds before I judge it.

You keep treating this as if it is single purpose device. It is a smart home product and providing services that improve is usefulness as such are important to me. I do not ask Siri the temperature or humidity in any of my rooms because I set up automations that keep it at levels that are comfortable for me. To do that I need sensors, and having those sensors in devices that provide me other services is a big win.

Being “really, really honest”, I was pretty happy with my first generation HomePods and I am not sure that I would be able to hear a “bump in sound quality”. I love computational audio, but my primary viewing room has many speakers and a Denon amp.

Temperature, humidity, precision location (U1), Thread radios, faster CPUs and more powerful machine learning all improve the function as a smart home device.

Funny, I missed all your posts in the thread excitedly discussing the rumors about Apple building a smart home display.

If you mean something other than a smart display, that is already covered will by the AppleTV.

Given that everything Apple seems to do is so tired, I am surprised you even care. They are a has been company not building anything you would want.

What do you even mean by wireless power in this context and how would it improve a high end smart speaker? Most people use the term to describe short range inductive charging, and I am not sure why that would be beneficial in this context. How long would you expect your high end battery powered speaker to last on a charge? What is your use case? More importantly, why do you think that would be the same product category as this device?


Your first generation had a Thread Radio? It had precision location services? It provided HomeKit temperature and humidity information for your HomeKit automations?

Wow, your was much cooler than mine. I can understand why you are so upset. The rest of us got the ones that Apple released commercially that did not have any of those features. This is an incremental update to an existing product. What you seem to want is something totally different and unrelated.

Although verbose, you've not contradicted anything I have said - instead preferring to basically reiterate your initial post so rather than reiterate my own post, I'll just direct you back to it.

There's one or two things you said I will address:

You go to great pains to reiterate the technical differences in this version of the product as if those differences make the product any less stale (which is the charge you're heroically, if vaingloriously, attempting to answer). We don't need to wait to get our hands on the product to understand what a difference they make to the value of the HomePod. Because there's lots and lots of reviews, including on this very website. The general consensus is that it's basically the same as the initial HomePod with a couple of sensors and some chip upgrades that make next to no discernible difference in performance. Boring. Stale. Five years and that's the improvement? Tired.

Secondly, telling me I can buy other Apple products doesn't make this product any less stale. Which is the charge, remember?

Thirdly, and in re of your question about charging. Yes, I was referring to inductive charging. I don't have a use case because I'm not a product manager or an engineer at Apple. You see, I'm what is referred to as a 'consumer'. I'm someone who "buys" products. So what I do is provide a list of things I would like or that would be useful or exciting to me. Do you see how that works? In this case, I was providing a hypothetical list of possible features that would be a bit more exciting than your lauded humidity sensor.

And finally, in your attempt to try and make this boring thing seem more exciting you decided, in your other reply, to list the fact that it acts as a stereo pair providing Dolby as a benefit. My reply was pointing out that the original already does that, and that should have been pretty clearly what I was referring to.

So unless you can pull something out of your arse a bit more exciting than a humidity sensor or thread radio then I'll consider the conversation closed. Stale.

 

[Tagbert]

""HomePod features Wi-Fi 4 connectivity that allows us to target exactly what works best in the entire system," translation: We'll use old standards so we can keep you shmucks updating each year.

Do you really think there will be an updated HomePod next year with Wi-Fi 6E and droves of people will upgrade because of that?

 

[dwaite]

Do you really think there will be an updated HomePod next year with Wi-Fi 6E and droves of people will upgrade because of that?

Also, it's not a "more is better" thing. Only general purpose devices like computers and cellphones will even bother with 6E, because 6GHz frequency is so limiting. I cover my home currently with a single 2.4 Ghz AP. I estimate I would need at least five 6 GHz ones.

 

[TundraKing]

If it was priced at $200 or even $250 it would be on my short list but $300 is a poor value. The Mini is a fantastic value and I get the Thread support that I want from it (I have 8 around the house and buying 8 full sized home pods would be an absurd investment) so it's was a big disappointment that Apple didn't price it as a reasonable step up from the mini.

The Sonus model 1's have equal sound quality, AirPlay/Siri support and are often as low as $300 A PAIR. They may not have some of the lesser used functions (NFC, Thread, Temp sensors...) but if you're buying the full sized HomePod mainly as a speaker there are better value choices.

 

[NT1440]

If it was priced at $200 or even $250 it would be on my short list but $300 is a poor value. The Mini is a fantastic value and I get the Thread support that I want from it (I have 8 around the house) so it's was a big disappointment that Apple didn't price it as a reasonable step up from the mini.

The Sonus model 1's have equal sound quality, AirPlay/Siri support and are often as low as $300 A PAIR. They may not have some of the lesser used functions (NFC, Thread, Temp sensors...) but if you're buying the full sized HomePod mainly as a speaker there are better value choices.

Source for that claim?

Edit: Wait, was that supposed to say Sonos? I though you were referencing some obscure boutique brand 😂

 

[Alan Wynn]

The Sonus model 1's have equal sound quality, AirPlay/Siri support and are often as low as $300 A PAIR.

You can control them with Siri without having an iOS/iPadOS device around? Will they perform other Siri tasks or just controlling music?

They may not have some of the lesser used functions (NFC, Thread, Temp sensors...) but if you're buying the full sized HomePod mainly as a speaker there are better value choices.

Will they pair with my AppleTV? Do they support Dolby Atmos from Apple Music? Will they stream Apple Music directly or just as an AirPlay 2 device from my iPhone? Can they be HomeKit hubs? Will they do face detection for HomeKit Secure Cameras? Will they participate in my Find My network?

 

[TundraKing]

You can control them with Siri without having an iOS/iPadOS device around? Will they perform other Siri tasks or just controlling music?

Will they pair with my AppleTV? Do they support Dolby Atmos from Apple Music? Will they stream Apple Music directly or just as an AirPlay 2 device from my iPhone? Can they be HomeKit hubs? Will they do face detection for HomeKit Secure Cameras? Will they participate in my Find My network?

 

[TundraKing]

You apparently didn't read my post. As a speaker they are a poor value. I've listened to the original HomePod and the Sonos 1 side by side and they were very similar. Room placement has more impact on sound quality than most people understand. I have two Apple TV 4k's and 8 minis so all the "extra features" in the full sized model are of little value. I was interested in a better sounding speaker for a room and so the full sized HomePod is a candidate but not at the price they set since I don't need the other functions.

If all you are interested in in your entire home is a single HomePod and have no Apple TV's then you may want all the functionality it offers but with all the rest of the features standard in Apple TV's and HomePod mini's the only thing the full sized HomePod offers is better sound which is available for less from other products.