I want one just so it can listen to and report to me if a smoke alarm goes off while I am not at home.
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 Smart Home Display to Resemble Iconic iMac G4 Design With Small Square Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I want one just so it can listen to and report to me if a smoke alarm goes off while I am not at home.
Yeah no. I've got zero interest in trying to locate the iPad that the kids are using when I want to be using it for home automation or some other task.
I also want there to be a home hub when the iPad is, you know, not at home.
Just because something can be portable does not automatically mean it should be.
Last edited:
Yes, we did. If you care enough to look back starting well before AVP launch, many of us acknowledged such a device could have enterprise market use cases (including medical), but lacked enough compelling use cases for home users (“the masses”). And that is precisely the point. If the average consumer “lacks imagination” necessary to find a use for it, it won’t sell. This really isn’t a difficult concept. For contrast, consumers had no trouble figuring out uses for devices like iPhone or iPad.
Fair enough. Is it really too much to ask those here who claim that all it takes is “imagination” to enlighten the rest of us about uses we don’t yet see?
From what I've been reading, the only substantial change Apple made with the release of iPadOS 16 that impacted the use of iPads with HomeKit, was that iPads can no longer be used as hubs, in favor of hubs that are always plugged in, like the Apple TV and HomePods. Apparently Apple feels that hubs should always have access to stable power, and not just battery power. But from what I'm reading, the Home app on iPadOS 16 and up, and the iPhone's iOS 16 and up, are identical as far as their ability to still function as controllers for these hubs. So both iPads and iPhones, by themselves, since they can't be hubs, can no longer manage HomeKit background tasks, automation management, remote access, or Matter device compatibility in the same way as dedicated hub devices like Apple TV and HomePod, and instead you use your iPad or iPhone as just the controller to tell the hub how to perform these tasks.
This doesn't address whether the Home app on iPads and iPhones will be usable as controllers for this supposed new hub as well, so that you don't have to always use the new hub's little built-in display to control it, but I guess I'd be a little surprised if Apple blocked support for using iPads and iPhones as controllers for it. But I can see the reason for having an always-attached display (even a relatively small one) for use as the hub's main controller, rather than requiring an iPad or iPhone which someone in the household might walk off with and use elsewhere.
This doesn't address whether the Home app on iPads and iPhones will be usable as controllers for this supposed new hub as well, so that you don't have to always use the new hub's little built-in display to control it, but I guess I'd be a little surprised if Apple blocked support for using iPads and iPhones as controllers for it. But I can see the reason for having an always-attached display (even a relatively small one) for use as the hub's main controller, rather than requiring an iPad or iPhone which someone in the household might walk off with and use elsewhere.
Last edited:
I have all apple products but use Alexa exclusively for home automation, I’m entrenched in the system at this point. This looks to be a pass for me and If it won’t work with Alexa it’ll be a hard pass for me.
Zzzzz...
* Likely to cost too much
* Siri needs her Abby Normal brain replaced
* Role based access control anyone?
How about they have a device that is a wall switch replacement (or two) that powers itself, has no cables, provides room occupancy, temperature, humidity, and provides room (it knows where it is) and house control but isn't a hub?
Hey, Apple! Think of the possibility of selling five hundred types of cover plates like you do with phone cases and watch bands.
* Likely to cost too much
* Siri needs her Abby Normal brain replaced
* Role based access control anyone?
How about they have a device that is a wall switch replacement (or two) that powers itself, has no cables, provides room occupancy, temperature, humidity, and provides room (it knows where it is) and house control but isn't a hub?
Hey, Apple! Think of the possibility of selling five hundred types of cover plates like you do with phone cases and watch bands.
Because Apple’s foray into home automation has been mediocre so far. Both Google and Amazon own companies which produce IoT devices (e.g. security systems, thermostats, etc.). Apple relies completely on 3rd parties support the HomeKit protocols. Adoption of HomeKit has been mediocre both in quantity of devices and quality of support. Until Apple can present a viable home-automation solution using their previous three HomeKit hubs (AppleTV, HomePod, iPad), adding a fourth hub doesn’t add value in and of itself.
Gonna have to really revamp the way HomeKit security works before I would consider one of these. In particular, the ability to set *per-device* whether the device can have settings modified, be view-only, or not even be accessible at all. I won't even share HomeKit now with other household members due to the lack of this ability — one misunderstood word and the heat gets turned off. Can you imagine someone coming to a window of the house and yelling for Siri to unlock the doors?
To be useful I expect it will have the ability to be a HomeKit hub as well as a Thread router, but to leave everything about the home, including security, openly accessible on a table would be a non-starter for me.
To be useful I expect it will have the ability to be a HomeKit hub as well as a Thread router, but to leave everything about the home, including security, openly accessible on a table would be a non-starter for me.
It will not allow you to do this. HomePods cannot unlock a lock. It will say “You need to continue on your iPhone or iPad.”
I have difficulty envisioning Apple being innovative in a category that others have been dominating for years.
To be honest, the Amazon Echo on a swivel arm that follows you around as you move is just plain creepy. I always wedge it in a corner, so it can't watch me.
Conversely, the Amazon Astro, basically an Echo on wheels, is insanely cool and highly useful.
To be honest, the Amazon Echo on a swivel arm that follows you around as you move is just plain creepy. I always wedge it in a corner, so it can't watch me.
Conversely, the Amazon Astro, basically an Echo on wheels, is insanely cool and highly useful.
They're leaving so many good ideas on the table... bring back the iPod brand, but instead make it a portable battery-powered HomePod. Bring back the AirPort line, as a Wi-Fi mesh system that can use iPads, Apple TVs and HomePod Minis as repeaters. Upgrade the AirPods Max to support lossless audio via USB-C. I should email Tim about all of this...
Apple home with a sensibo unit can control my Airconditioner..sort of.
I can set the temperature
I can set Off/Heat/Cool/Auto
I can set times for on/off
BUT I can NOT set fan speed, can NOT adjust the vanes, can NOT set up a defrost cycle, etc etc etc, all it is is a very expensive remote control that came free with the heat pump without all the functionality.
Its a joke.
Homekit/Matter is garbage. I have moved on to Zigbee and Hubitat.
Too little too late, better yet I can get high quality industrial zigbee products that I feel safe putting inside a flush box in the wall (eg relays for controlling the underfloor heating in the bathroom as well as the extractor fan and heated towel rails)
I'm not saying it's a bad product category I'm saying they seem to be jumping into this out of a need for revenue as opposed to thinking they have a better execution of the product/service. It looks like a lot of Apple's decisions lately have been based in "this isn't working. What do we do now? Where can we put these people we hired? What can we do with these leftover components? Find a way to use that IP we paid millions for!"
That’s a particularly cynical take. I doubt Apple is flailing because they need revenue. And I doubt it is “where can we put these people we hired” or “leftover components”. But it could be something just as harmful. It is clear from the outside that Apple is way too large to be under the control of a single person, like it still was under Steve Jobs. It is now a collection of fiefdoms, as is a common problem of large businesses with scope beyond what a single leader can or will directly manage.
Likewise, I don’t think it is a matter of “find a way to use IP we paid for”. That would be the sunk-cost fallacy. If Apple were falling prey to that, then Stanford should shut down its GSB.
Apple has tons of money to invest in projects. Figuring out which projects is no longer “what did Steve say he wants” and now a matter of “how do I convince Tim to give my fiefdom more of the R&D budget”. It may be guided by elements of Steve’s vision from more than a decade ago, but it is now decided by Tim, who bases his decision on the data presented to him by underlings, not vision.
Last edited: