Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So, basically, Sonos.

Not at all, no. I have equipped my house with several Sonos. The sound is great. But privacy (microphones) is of course less secure for such a small company. Technically: As soon as I find out that Apple in OSX manages to make video transmissions in my cinema room possible without audio delay, I will switch to Apple. Sonos can't do that.
 
9A7BCA44-545E-4519-8B95-2EEC55FE1712.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerWilco
Late isn’t the issue. What matters is what you bring to the table when you finally decide to play. That’s my gripe with HomePod. They haven’t done anything special. This is the first Apple product that has no discernible advantage over other similar products. Sure, it sounds good, beam forming, blah blah blah. But the overall feature set? The usefulness of the assistant? Not remotely better than anything else out there.

I think the fanboys and girls will buy it...and then sales fall off a cliff. Apple needs Siri to be better before HomePod stands a chance. I don’t think HomePod will be a slow burn like the Watch unless/until Apple delivers a vastly improved smart speaker experience, which means a much much more useful Siri.

Homekit hub support (check)
Native Apple Music support (check)
Improved sound over $200 Bluetooth speakers (assuming a check)

All points to at least withholding judgement until you can test one out, perhaps?
 
You really have limited knowledge on how Sonos functions. One thing for sure, Sonos does Not Suck. At present, Sonos audio echo system far exceeds Apples. That does not mean that Apples is substandard either. The choice comes down to ones budget and audio needs. Example, how does HomePod handle home theater surround sound without adding a third party system like Sonos? FYI, Sonos plays my entire iTunes library off of my Mac Mini. Want a single source integrated, complete home system, Apple not there yet.
Sono's do suck after I demoed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobob
In other words, why would Schiller be trying to market an incredible sound experience to 99% of people who don't give a hoot?

Because Apple = profits. Because it's part of a bigger strategy against Amazon & Google (and to an extent Sonos) devices and trying to lift Apple Music, so the key differentiator in this case is the sound quality and the higher price. People can now claim they bought the expensive Apple product, because they are "totally into music"
 
Explained above. Most have never experienced great sound so even if there's even better sound, they're unaware. This sets a new bar for them and will blow them away.

This is exactly how Bose has been successful at selling their systems with their stores (spare us the audiophile complaints about Bose being crap). The average person has no idea music or movies can sound better. They wander into a Bose store at the mall and they're blown away that with decent speakers, these things can sound better. They walk out with a thousand dollars in speakers to improve their home audio experience. Apple will sell in the same way.

Even though it's not hi-fi audio, it's still a lot better than what the average users is use to. That'll sell.
[doublepost=1517358240][/doublepost]

Those guys just look for any reason to slam a product that costs less than $1,000. Why in the world would you give your product to someone you know is going to slam it no matter what?

In addition, the people those sites appeal to are NOT Apple's intended audience. The people that read audio blogs aren't interested in the HomePod and have already made up their minds not to like it or buy it, no matter how good it sounds. Again, there's no point in marketing to them.

There is nothing to be gained, which is why Apple hasn't bothered.

The BS meter is to the extreme, is this Daring Fireball's John Gruber writing behind an alias, how do you know what most have experienced? How many Bose systems have sold in 2017, and in their history? If this was designed for the average user it would be SIRI compatible with Spotify and 60 other streaming sites.

If you are confident in your product and you truly believe it produces amazing sound and are not just delivering spin because you realize this can is overpriced and underserved, then release it to the most discerning reviewers, not the mainstream tech journalists who cover Apple as if Steve Jobs was Jesus and their Apple products will deliver them to Heaven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neutralguy
$700 for a pair of speakers if you want stereo. How big are these speakers ?
Actually, you won't get stereo if you pair two of these when they come out. Just two mono speakers.
[doublepost=1517385957][/doublepost]
It's all BS talk. The only thing I understand is that they want to have as much presence between you and the artist as possible to monetize it. This smells like another Ping. They can't improve the original music no matter how hard they try. They can screw it up by offering Bose-like speaker and pretending that they are making a revolution in sound reproduction.
This pretty much sums up the Homepod as it currently stands. A speaker that can only play music from one brand of distributor is not progress not matter what its quality.
 
Compare dollar for dollar with a studio monitor and a Chromecast audio, etc.

No god damn way would anyone choose this for audio..

Siri is garbage. So no point in even counting that "feature".

Frequency response?
Not even listed?
Yeah. It's okay. I can guess...
 
I don't get it.. if, as you say, people do not care, why would they pay $350 for this Homepod


It is pretty easy really and you don't have to be an Einstein to understand it. Things don't have to be pure black and white, so they don't have to choose between Incredible sound quality or rubbish sound quality. There is a space in between. I don't want to settle for a typical sort of BT speaker with mediocre quality and also I don't want to pay thousands for something that attracts audiophiles and myself won't be able to appreciate it. I want something that sounds great to my non audiophile ears for a few hundreds £ and no more. And HomePod could be just that. Time will tell.
 
It would have tipped their hand to the competition. Every month counts. Why let them try to one up them with some thrown together Solution and claim they had it first.

If that's your argument, then what about the Apple Watch that they had so much product information months before the launch about with it's capabilities and functions. Or the AirPods they heavily advertised before the launch (Which was also delayed). Both of those were new products and there is plenty of competition of smart watches and Bluetooth market before Apple. That said, I do believe Apple seems to make their products more worth the wait.
 
Last edited:
99% of listeners don't care. For the vast majority of users, a normal 128bit MP3 is perfectly fine.

Apple markets to the average user. They're the largest percentage of the market and the largest potential to make money.

Just look at how going after hi-fi audio has worked out for Tidal.


So, 99% of customers wouldn't care about buying an expensive speaker because a "normal" speaker or headphones is perfectly fine. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MecPro
I'll stick to my proper HiFi thanks.

I stayed away from Apple Music *****, and don't use iTunes.

I wish they can give me a MacBook Pro that's actually good for a pro photographer like they used to make them, that's all.

But that ship has sailed. I've become so numb to whatever Apple marketing says anymore, and don't really care.
 
99% of listeners don't care. For the vast majority of users, a normal 128bit MP3 is perfectly fine.

Apple markets to the average user. They're the largest percentage of the market and the largest potential to make money.

Just look at how going after hi-fi audio has worked out for Tidal.

You shouldn't consider Tidal as the only contender right now, Tidal per se is a messy app in my opinion. It has nothing to do with sound quality, which is good as far as i've tested, but with quality of the application. That is why Tidal is suffering.

Consider that now Qobuz HiFi is spreading and even Deezer is offering CD quality flac streaming. Not to mention Spotify which is testing it and it's highly requested on the forums, I think I'm going to switch to Spotify HiFi once that is released.
 
Just curious to know what are the actual use cases of these type of speakers (Home pod, Echo, Alexa) for American consumers apart from listening music?
 
Look, let's just admit it.

Apple invented sound.

We need to understand this point. Sound did not exist before Apple, there were versions of sound on the planet before, but Apple waited till they could improve upon Sound, and now here it is.

Sound done correctly ;)
[doublepost=1517393584][/doublepost]
Check those size measurements: 6.8" high X 5.6" wide. This thing is tiny. You can probably put it inside of your own fabric mesh (and thus ANY color) unless that throws off how it optimizes itself.

I think the pics are somewhat misleading. Take a jumbo roll of TP and set it where you think you want this thing to go. It won't be sized much different than that. Even better: take a roll of paper towels and cut it in half. Set that where you want it to go. That's just about EXACTLY the size.

I's like someone to explain the science of just how something so small can created very large low pressure waves to produce the stunning Bass Notes they are speaking of.
 
This really falls into the snake oil category for apple. If you know anything about how sound waves propagate, no amount of cheap tricks or speaker bouncing nonsense is going to change that this is a very basic speaker setup that's nowhere near even a cheap pair of speakers in terms of audio performance per dollar. Apple is relying on siri to drive it's functions and usefulness, I have my doubts it'll do anything different to an iphone.

It's sad apple have furthered myths about possible performance of such a speaker design and the merits of bouncing audio. They actually claims it's a good thing!!! I mean holy F Balls that's just untrue in so many ways. I know it won't be DOA but I really wish it was.
 
It is pretty easy really and you don't have to be an Einstein to understand it. Things don't have to be pure black and white, so they don't have to choose between Incredible sound quality or rubbish sound quality. There is a space in between. I don't want to settle for a typical sort of BT speaker with mediocre quality and also I don't want to pay thousands for something that attracts audiophiles and myself won't be able to appreciate it. I want something that sounds great to my non audiophile ears for a few hundreds £ and no more. And HomePod could be just that. Time will tell.
Fair point, but what are you using now for listening to music while at home? I put up this question because I just want to understand the target of potential buyers. For example, I'll wait and see if this item will be worth as an add-on (new rooms covered) to my present setup. No way it can be compared with my gear for sound quality, but I'd like to have the chance to have music and news all around the house (low volume, just a companion during the day). So it must be easy and versatile to use. But still an add-on, not a completely new setup
 
Really irritated by the "fake reviews" of the new Homepod and Mac Pro. The staged and controlled release to a small number of youtube influencers to get positive buzz before real reviewers are allowed to try the product. It's so transparently manipulative.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.