Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Phil Schiller on HomePod: We Want to Create a New Kind of Music Experience in the Home That Sounds Incredible
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I wonder what we'll do when Samsung or similar rolls out a competing device with EIGHT+ tweeters. Will we crown that one superior because it has one+ more? It's incredible to watch us rally around simple hardware features as if replicating a quantity of tweeters is going to be as hard as- say- making Siri smarter than Alexa & Google. How hard would it be for someone to put 14 tweeters in a single box? Will that make theirs at least 2X better? The hardware advantages- if actually any- will be the easiest for competitors to replicate.
My car has a pretty good sound system. But I can make it better or worse in one day by swapping out the hardware. Can anyone here make an 8-tweeter array? 10? 20? Could you do that in a little bigger box around a modestly bigger subwoofer (capable of deeper/richer bass)? A "win" cannot be mostly on commodity hardware. Whoever is supplying Apple with these tweeters will probably readily sell orders of the very same pieces to anyone else that wants to buy. If that anyone else puts 8 of them in a cylinder, are we going to spin how 8 > 7? 10 > 7? 14 is 2X > 7?
The magic of Apple is always in the unique, exclusive software, not the hardware. Strip macOS off of a Mac and what's left? A bunch of pieces & parts that could just as readily be the basis of a PC. Does any of that make a Mac a Mac? IMO, no- what makes that hardware a Mac is macOS. Maybe stretch that into the "tight integration between macOS AND the underlying hardware"? But not the chips & screen & battery & speakers & case alone.
In this case, the tangible piece of the software for HP is the Siri "smarts." Will this be Apple-wow software? Even Apple themselves keep pounding away on the superior hardware spin. Does anyone know if this Siri is even any smarter than the Siri we already have? Maybe Apple is holding that back in a shrewd move to delay the software catch-up reaction efforts if Siri 2.0 is indeed superior to the competition? Or maybe Siri is "as is," and Apple hopes we can be sold on a focus-on-the-hardware for a change.
If the hardware is indeed superior, how long will it take Amazon, Google, etc to react by swapping out some hardware? And if the hardware is not superior, then the head-to-head showdown comes down to how much smarter is Siri here. I hope Siri is much smarter than "as is," as that will be a positive gain for all of us- including those who do not buy a HP. But with so much marketing focus on the hardware, I find myself wondering.
Last edited:
And what’s special? I’m sure it will sound good. But that alone isn’t going to make it a success. Alexa is a far more useful assistant. It does more. It works with more third party products. It works with multiple music services. HomePod is a me too product with a narrower feature set than the competition and a higher price. Like I said, I don’t think it will resonate beyond the most hardcore Apple fans who are eager to buy a new Apple product, regardless of what it is.
I'd say Sonos market is pretty small right now. Obviously if you have a lot invested in these you're going to hesitate getting a homepod. I have a lone Echo speaker in living room and sound system in basement on the big tv. Simply put, I'd like a Sonos type system in main room (and when I say that..i mean soundbar, sub, two backs). Apple cannot provide this.
Why invest hundreds into these speakers unless you can make it work for the TV as well? A 700 dollar stereo homepod system (that can't expand into anything more) in some corner of the house isn't what I'm really in the market for. Having Siri built in isn't any benefit to me as I hate using Siri unless I have to and even then it's simply simple things like setting alarms.
It doesn't really matter how the Homepod sounds. It's just too limited for the price.
You'll need way more than a 350 USD smart speaker to notice any lack of quality in Apple Music 256 kbit/s AAC files.
I believe most people won't be able to distinguish 256 kbit/s AAC from CD audio or FLAC files even on the most expensive Hi-Fi systems or headphones.
Also, "don't care about audio quality" is not the same as being satisfied with 256 kbit/s AAC. There however according to reviews is a notable difference in quality between HomePod and other smart speakers, about which people will of course care.
Caring about audio quality doesn't mean insisting on the highest possible bitrate lossless codec audio files.
Last edited:
Yep, he said he didn't see the point of these speakers without a screen just months ago. But this homepod is the best thing ever..lol
It's not a mono system. Only the woofer is mono. Apple specifically states that the music is split into left/center/right channels, and that's been confirmed by the initial reviews talking about positioning of instruments etc.
So, you’ll buy a refurbished one?Drop the price to $299 and I'll consider it.
I definitely don't need one, but I kinda want one. Regardless of what people say, I have been really happy with my Airpods, Apple TV, and Apple Watch.
But will it integrate with a subwoofer you already have? will it balance out your existing stereo/theater?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
How convenient that revolutionary hardware for "best quality sound" can pair with "good enough" software to be perfect for everyone. Amazing!
Here a bunch of us are pushing HP on the concepts of up-to-audiophile sound quality, rationalizing the generally higher price on the vital importance of best quality sound (which happens to align with Apple's main push points too). However, since Apple doesn't seem to be rolling out a higher quality of source files, we'll simultaneously argue that 256kbps AAC is "good enough" as source files because people can't hear the difference (of better quality audio).
Back with the headphone jack jettison, we made the very same "good enough" argument the other way. That is, inferior bluetooth audio hardware is "good enough" because people don't care about the quality of audio. That leaned on the same supply of audio files too.
So which is it? Is inferior hardware good enough because people don't care (or can't hear a difference) or is superior hardware the most important thing? Because what's feeding both inferior bluetooth hardware and apparently superior HP hardware is the EXACT SAME SOURCE FILES.
This ^^ is a big part of the reason why I'm confused. Although, I'm fairly certain having the Sonos speakers solely as airplay speakers and being able to use the homepod's true Siri integrated input/output will not yield the same result. I hate the fact that both sides are being 100% vague or simply unforthcoming with info as to how or if this will even happen. Makes it hard to decide where to spend my money - I'm sure there are many in the same (sinking) boat. Not to mention the fact that we literally have next to no idea how or to what extent the HomePod will even function within Apple's own ecosystem.
Given I have multiple iPads and Apple TVs, my wife and I both have Apple watches and iPhones, I do not need another Siri device - period. I'm also outfitted with several Sonos speakers already and willing to buy more.
For me..
Best scenario: Airplay 2 gets rolled out and Sonos products (old and new 'gen2') catch a software update enabling them to be targeted in iOS as Airplay speakers. Money. And at that - I might even think about keeping my Apple Music subscription (I can already play directly from Spotify to my Sonos speakers via Spotify Connect).
Worst scenario: Promises made never fulfilled for one of a plethora of reasons. Sonos just never makes good on it (which I doubt as they seem to be dedicated to a fully agnostic approach to what services they offer accessibility to). Orrrrrrrrrrr Apple realizes, "People might not buy our $350 smart speaker if we allow our hardware to access other speakers that easily." So, either they'll be so confident that there's a market for the HomePod and that the audio quality is that much better than Sonos they won't care - or they'll block it in an attempt to further corner whatever market they think they're cornering.
Music in my home is important to me - being able to actually use hardware I have spent thousands of dollars on is important to me. To be honest - this is the first time in a long while that I've been soured to an Apple offering and have thought about dumping a piece of their hardware or software from how I do things.
Feeling the same way.
I'd love to get a HomePod, I just can't figure out a place in the house where it would make sense being a great speaker and a "smart" speaker.
In the living room we already have a decent HiFi system (quite out of HomePod league) connected to a first gen AirPort Express (802.11g), and there isn't really another place where neither HomePod's audio quality nor smarts would be wasted.
I agree.
More tweeters don't equate to a superior device - - however, a certain minimum number of tweeters is needed for a device to cover off the geometry of its hemispherical field of play, and I believe HomePod's seven is close to that number.
I have to Sonos play 1 and I don't particularly think the audio is all that impressive. The alexa integration is not 100% alexa. The lack of bluetooth presents some limitation for my use.
I prefer my echo plus.
Homepod's homekit compatibility is important to me. The other thing for me is how it will perform with the apple tv.
having a homepod in the rooms with the tvs and the additional functionality may prove to be worthy.
As far as the market goes, Apples penetration may be slow but will be steady.
I have one on preorder and the 9th off. The first thing will be seeing how it sounds.
If you're looking for 2 more play 1 (1 with minimal use and the other still in the box) let me know.
[doublepost=1517406655][/doublepost]
Perhaps the iphone would have been a better example.
True. That statement was also true in 2008, 1998, 1988, 1978, and 1968.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Hop back to the first post in this thread. The image grab that talks about buying 2 Has for stereo is from Apple's own website, in Apple's own words. Apple says we need to buy 2 AND take advantage of a future software upgrade to get stereo from HP. We keep spinning this and spinning this while seemingly ignoring Apple's own words on this topic. Or, in this case, selecting taking something Apple says while ignoring they very tangible convey we need 2 Hrs + future software for stereo.
That's not hater opinions. That's not making up something that isn't true. That's APPLES OWN WORDS IN WRITING ON THEIR WEBSITE RIGHT NOW. Go see for yourself: HP overview page, about halfway down.
It isn’t religion. It’s a long history of Apple delivering pretty good to great quality, consistently, and building an ecosystem.
The relief I felt when I used my first G4 MacBook, the joy of using my first gen iPhone, and the satisfaction I felt using my Apple Watch, all contributed to my lack if hesitation ordering a HomePod. My faith is not blind, it’s fueled by hindsight.
https://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/0...es-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/
"The file format only matters in one situation: when it audibly distorts or degrades the recording. General consensus seems to be that this happens at or around 128Kbps when using MP3, but this greatly depends on your ears. Anything above that generally will not provide noticeable improvement for most people using most sound equipment. There are a sizable percentage of persons who may benefit from 192Kbps given their listening equipment or hearing, and an infinitesimal group that might hear a difference at 256Kbps or 320Kbps (though I tend to seriously doubt those people, that or they have extraordinary hearing)."
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I can buy that... but most so because 7 happens to fit the diameter of this particular product. Make a slightly bigger one and maybe you need 8 to cover the 360 degree potential. And then one has to ask: will the 8 tweeter version be deemed superior because it has one more?
How about going for a bigger sub for deeper bass? That might take a bigger speaker size too. It might take 10-12 or more tweeters to cover the 360-degree potential. Will THAT one then be deemed superior because it has more (and a bigger sub)?
See that's the problem with both Apple and us pounding away so hard on hardware... and especially on a quantity of tweeters. Putting more of them in some other cylinder is relatively trivial. Maybe even buy the exact same tweeter hardware from whoever is selling them to Apple?
Exclusive Apple software is what makes an Apple product special. If we have to lean too hard on the hardware, the "copycats" can quickly match up on that level.
Well, people _can't_ hear the difference between 256 Kbit/sec AAC and something at higher quality. Most don't have any equipment where anybody could hear the difference (and we are not talking HomePod here, we are talking about serious money). And of those who spent thousands on their equipment, many don't have the ears to hear the difference.
And even if you can hear a difference, hearing a difference and hearing what is better is still not the same thing.
All true. From my personal perspective, the vast majority of Apple's first release products are pretty good to great, but some are less compelling. I've been chasing down Apple's newest products since I flew to MacWorld Boston in 1993 just to buy a Newton. (Returned it a week later after realizing it wasn't ready for prime time). OTOH, driving from VA to DE to buy a PowerBook G4 in 2001 was totally worth the trip. AirPort, iPod, iPod mini, iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Photo, Apple TV, Mac Pro, iPhone, iPad, AW, AirPods, had the 1st gen all on their respective Day One. Some were life flow changing, some gimmicky or needed more time in the lab.
The HomePod is a different beast to me. I was curious about the former products, I'm nonplussed about HomePod because, we'll it's a speaker with voice capabilities that, we are told, sounds better than competitors. OK, but I still don't know how it fits into my life flow. We know it's not compatible with home sharing -- not even a "coming soon," and for me that's a problem. We know it's not true stereo, again, that doesn't thrill me no matter how room filling or clear it might be. And then there is the cost. It's fine for putting in one main room or for someone who lives in a small apartment. But it's quite a spend if you want to build out a whole home "Siri" network in an avg 2500-3000sq ft home. On top of that it only really works 100% if the owner subscribes to Apple Music/ iCloud Music Library. But maybe that is the market for this products -- 1 level apartment dwellers in LA, SF, NYC, CHI, ATL, etc. who also subscribe to Apple services -- and why I still don't feel all that driven to try it out.
To be more succinct, I'm not sure what problem HomePod fixes for me. I would enjoy a collection of Siri speakers throughout my home. HomePod doesn't solve that because of cost. So I have to ask, if, me, as a serial Apple early adopter isn't chomping at the bit, how will more tech adverse, Apple agnostic, customers become enthusiastic about HomePod? It really does seem like a niche product for apartment and dorm dwellers, maybe teens -- but again there is price -- that use Apple services.
Right...buying two would give you two woofers and thus two channels for low frequency reproduction, which technically fulfills the definition of "stereo". But that doesn't change the fact that a single HomePod will still split the mid/high range into more than one channel with the seven tweeters, which means that it's definitely not a mono speaker.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, let's buy that then just for discussion. Has Apple been scamming all of us all these years pushing 256kbps and AAC as superior to 128kpbs mp3?
And if our ears are just so poor to not be able to hear the difference, why do we need this "superior hardware" again? If our ears are so poor, why not a much cheaper competing product?
I get what you want to do here: rationalize that we need an HP on "best quality sound" hardware while simultaneously rationalizing that the audio supplied to it needs no comparable upgrade. But the best quality speaker in the world- be it this or something else- will be limited to the quality of sound fed to it.