HomePod No Longer Available for Launch Day Delivery From Apple in U.S.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

LOL, Apple will never own the smart speaker market. The Homepod may win top worst product award for 2018 though. Right now, it sits in first place. This is no iphone that redefined that market. It's no ipad which defined a new market. It's not airpods which sort of defined a market of wireless earpods. Or even apple watch which took over with obvious potential.

This is a speaker whose audio quality the mainstream won't give a crap about, has the worst AI in the market, is gimped not being BT or having audio inputs, relies on having a phone to set it up, and can't do stereo or multiroom. Airplay has too much lag to work with apple tv. Right now this is a steaming pile of overpriced junk compared to the competition. It won't be defining any kind of market.

Perhaps it could evolve later to be a typical apple product but Apple has a lot of work to do.

Wow, that's pretty harsh to the other extreme. Personally, I think HP will sell very well and may in fact come to dominate the "smart speaker" segment... if not in volume of units (which will probably NOT be the case, mostly due to price), it will easily win the "...but who makes the most profitable smart speaker?" battle... which seems good enough-to-preferred for this crowd. Again, I believe Apple could box air and sell a million of 'em... and even drive some of these people to smother should they run out of Apple air by refusing to breathe the inferior, regular air.

There's probably something (knockoff) from China that has worse AI. The pre-release review consensus does seem to support "not quite as smart" which is different than the extreme of "worst."

I strongly agree it should have added consumer flexibility of both BT and at least one AUX port. Since Apple has said it will later get the upgrade for stereo and multi room, I believe they will follow through with that.

Airplay works pretty good, though I can turn around and crit the (over?)dependency on proprietary Airplay at the same time. Besides it's US here that have spun this thing up as a home theater speaker, not Apple. So it's not really meant to be that per Apple's own marketing.

Here's what I think will happen: Apple entering the space will inspire the competitors to step up THEIR hardware if theirs is objectively reviewed inferior and they see a falloff in sales because of that. I can imagine Amazon, Google, etc sourcing the very same tweeters and sub hardware from wherever Apple is getting theirs. I can imagine a Samsung or similar rolling out a slightly bigger clone with a few more tweeters and a bigger sub. Etc.

Just the rumor that Apple might start building televisions seemed to inspire TV manufacturers to step up their games, causing TVs to quickly go from relatively dumb to much smarter in just a few years. I suspect the arrival of HP to spur on the competition to quickly replicate the hardware advantages while touting their "smarts." The question is, when the commodity pieces- the hardware- align, does Apple step up the HP "smarts" to align or exceed the competition's "smarts." Or does Apple just keep leaning on the halo, knowing that a crowd of buyers will buy simply because it's an Apple product and thus automatically gets viewed as superior?

 

[cardfan]

Yes, each company is broadly doing the right thing by focusing on their strengths. For Amazon, it's unlimited integrations. For Apple, it's sound quality.

Google is the only one that's a bit muddled. Their strength is answering any query and they should focus on that. Instead, they have this Home Max product for sound quality and they want to get all of the integrations that Amazon has.

For Apple it should be integration. That's why I remain an Apple customer. Software/hardware and integration with each other. (Also, I'm able to have google, amazon, MS, or whatever third party work great on iOS/Mac and can accommodate almost any user) It should sound good, that's a given but I don't think the mainstream is that hung up on which speaker might sound a little better.

Apple music integration is a good first step but this isn't Siri as it is on your iphone. It's very limited. It has to do more within the apple universe and apple tv full integration is essential IMO for me to be interested.

 

[deanthedev]

You just posted a hard poke at those who "can't have it both ways" as if the negative slights rule out any use of HP because they are both claiming it's for and not for audiophiles.

What I've generally seen in all this debate is that some- including myself- are seeing through Apple-controlled demo news and pre-release "reviews" such that we want to wait for (especially) the audio review press to do OBJECTIVE reviews. They can't do that until they possess one and the vast majority of that space doesn't seem to be on Apple's pre-release comp list. An objective mind might wonder why not? It's primarily a speaker. Wouldn't the audio press be the best place to seek reviews of "best quality sound" instead of tech press (where one of the first spent her first couple of paragraphs thoroughly disclaiming her audio hardware knowledge) and entities like the WSJ, who's pages tend to be filled with stock market info instead of AV hardware reviews.

As to the apparent undermining of "pre-release" crits not aligning with the "Apple only gives units <to friends>" concepts, there's less there than the extremes you imply. The crits are generally soft, often remedied within the very same "review" by the "reviewer" (which is always suspect) with various "just one software update away" type references. Objective reviews will focus on what comes out of the box, not what the product might become sometime in the future if Apple updates the software to do more things.

You are obviously a massive fan. Take the Apple logo off of this product. Imagine it as a Samsung smart speaker instead. Now apply the very same soft crits to it: not as smart as competitors, not able to sync up for stereo out of the box, not whole home out of the box, etc. Are you in these threads throughly selling a Samsung HomePod like you are selling an Apple HomePod... or are you shredding it for the known shortcomings, generally soft as they are? (rhetorical, I can easily guess the answer to that question).

Pre-release demo news and pre-release reviews need some crits to sound credible. Else, they would appear to be an (even more obvious) extension of Apple marketing. The crits I've seen tend to be soft, easily remedied if Apple does stuff in the future to remedy them. What we'll see AFTER 2/9 are reviews based on the "as is," not on the "how great it may become*"

None of this is meant to put HP down. From what I've seen so far, I'm increasingly convinced it will likely sound best of the smart speaker segment myself. Nevertheless, I still see right through spinning it up based on demo news and pre-release "reviews." Those who have similar questions can just stand by for a few more days and then likely get to see real reviews... WHICH may be just as- if not more- flattering OR may fill in some blanks that are generally dodged or marginalized by friends and fans of Apple.

*if Apple follows through on various updates to make it do all of what we are imagining it could do.

Again, you're missing my point.

At the beginning we had a few early listening tests done by people invited to controlled demos by Apple. People claimed this isn't good enough because Apple could have cheated by modifying the tests to make the HomePod sound better and the competitors worse. They said wait for the reviews.

Now we have lots of independent reviews done by all the same organizations that Apple typically sends review units to (and a few new ones). People claim this isn't good enough because A) they are given early review units so are biased towards Apple or B) none of these people are audio experts and aren't qualified to judge the HomePod. Now we have to wait for reviews from A) people who have no stake in needing to impress Apple or B) audio experts who know how to review speakers.

What excuses will people make when real users get their HomePods and rave about how good they sound? When "non-biased" sites also state the HomePod sounds great?

It's always a moving target when it comes to Apple. We see this everywhere and now we're seeing it with the HomePod. It's about the only that's consistent when it comes to reviewing Apple products.


And why the comment about being a massive Apple fan? Is that supposed to imply that my opinions don't count? Why do people always play the "fanboy" card?

 

[citysnaps]

For me, the appeal of HomePod is that I don't have to engage it with another device; i.e. my iPhone, iPad, Mac, in order to listen to my music.

If it works as expected, it will sit somewhere in my family room, always on, waiting for a voice command. And from anywhere in the room, even at a distance, I can say something like "Hey Siri, play Miles Davis' Kind of Blue album." And it will happen.

Hopefully, it will sound great (even with my unusually high walls/ceiling, and resulting echo) thanks to HomePod's signal processing. It's easy enough to return if the audio quality isn't up to expectations.

IIRC, HomePod standby power dissipation is only 1.7 watts; around $3.70 per year for electricity. I can live with that

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You haven’t been to my house,apparently.

Literal LOL man. Well done.

 

[Baymowe335]

Listening to the Verge podcast on this and Nilay was really talking up the sound quality. It’s a head scratcher to me that Apple didn’t make Siri improvements a priority for launch or at least a new Siri domain for music/podcasts. Even if Siri was still best with Apple Music at least there would be some native support for other services. If Apple had done that reviews would have been a lot better. Sad to see a product with really good sound be a no buy because Apple can’t get its act together with Siri.
[doublepost=1518105451][/doublepost]
But Apple could create a Siri domain for music and podcasts and then you’re not locked into AM. At least support for other music services isn’t limited by hardware. And if you have an iOS device you can use other services via AirPlay.

My guess is improvements to Siri will be a bigger priority. The beauty is it can be updated over time.

 

[RodoBobJon]

That's great and seems to about perfectly fit this exact product launch. But Apple has the money and talent to do both- thoroughly build on their own strongest points AND address their relative weaknesses vs. key competition. They are not a weak competitor or a fledgling one or cash-strapped vs. richer players, etc. In short, Apple could run with that exact philosophy AND counter it by ALSO overcoming competitor advantages.

Should we expect anything less of Apple? If anyone can do both, isn't that Apple?

Of course they should do both in the long run, but this is version 1 of a new product and so focus is the name of the game. I don't think it's true that Apple has some great advantage here. They have basically unlimited money, but that's not the same thing as having unlimited engineering and design bandwidth. In fact, much has been written about how Apple's so-called "functional" organizational structure (as opposed to a divisional structure), unusual for such a large company, limits their ability to multitask.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Again, you're missing my point.

At the beginning we had a few early listening tests done by people invited to controlled demos by Apple. People claimed this isn't good enough because Apple could have cheated by modifying the tests to make the HomePod sound better and the competitors worse. They said wait for the reviews.

Now we have lots of independent reviews done by all the same organizations that Apple typically sends review units to (and a few new ones). People claim this isn't good enough because A) they are given early review units so are biased towards Apple or B) none of these people are audio experts and aren't qualified to judge the HomePod. Now we have to wait for reviews from A) people who have no stake in needing to impress Apple or B) audio experts who know how to review speakers.

What excuses will people make when real users get their HomePods and rave about how good they sound? When "non-biased" sites also state the HomePod sounds great?

For those that like to read OBJECTIVE reviews before making a purchase decision, such excuses NOT to buy will mostly evaporate if such reviews are OBJECTIVE and very favorable. They'll buy one and then maybe come on here and gush about how great it is.

For those that simply want to stir the pot and have no intention to buy, they'll find other excuses. Nothing wrong with other people NOT buying this thing if they don't want to buy it. If you want one, buy one. If they don't want one, they shouldn't buy one. Others can not want one or even HATE this product and it not affect you one bit.

I'm in this camp of waiting on OBJECTIVE reviews. I can see rooms in my home with a HP or similar could go and be enjoyable. But I don't need to be the first to unbox one or need to post that mine is upgrading to shipping. I'm curious to know what OBJECTIVE reviews say BEFORE I spend the money. Anything wrong with that? No.

If you are sold before the demo news and/or before of after the pre-release "reviews," great. You buying one doesn't affect those not buying one- or not buying one yet- in the least. Get one man. Enjoy it.

As to people having opinions that differ from yours, no one in the world has ever been able to move all people to align their views with any one other persons- especially by simply writing down something in a web forum somewhere over and over. What's it matter if others don't like HP and/or don't buy one? Those who do can enjoy their purchase just as fully.

 

[mattburley7]

finally caved in and will be getting one. my mom ordered two of them. one for her and one for me! haha

 

[OllyW]

And if you have an iOS device you can use other services via AirPlay.

If it's to be used in a family environment it means everyone has to have an iOS device though. It's why Nilay described it as...

...this is why I started thinking of the HomePod as “lonely.” It feels like it was designed for a very demanding person to use while living alone entirely inside Apple’s ecosystem. It’s tied more closely to a single iPhone and iCloud account than any other smart speaker

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

My guess is improvements to Siri will be a bigger priority. The beauty is it can be updated over time.

While this is certainly true, a lot of us have been waiting for big improvements to Siri for years and years now. So yes, the beauty is there that this may become something much more... or Apple may not choose to do much with it beyond existing promises. Hopefully it sells well enough for Apple to get that prioritization.

 

[neutralguy]

Remember all the people claiming we need to see HomePod reviews by audio experts (and not normal tech reviewers)?

And all the people claiming audiophiles or those serious about audio would never buy a HomePod?

They can't have it both ways. If no "audiophile" will buy the HomePod then it doesn't need to be reviewed by "audiophiles". The "regular" people interested in this are going to visit the usual review sites and base their decision on what they say. So all they're going to come across are all those positive reviews.

Look.. any time a company releases a product , they send it to objective reviewers or independent reputed companies to review it. Why? Because they really want to know the product they built is a really good product or not. This is a synergy that has been going on for ages.. the collaboration between manufacturers and reviewers. If a product turns out good, the company boasts about it; and if the product is bad then the company notes down the negative points and starts working on fixing it. That's how you know that the company is interested in giving the consumer the best product.
I dont know whether Apple worked with any audio engineers to build this product or not. Definitely they have. But the part that bothers me is that if Apple is so confident about the quality of sound HomePod generates, why not send a few to the independent reviewers and get it reviewed? After all, that's the true test of the product. That's how the product will be used: at somebody's home which is not a replica of Apple's controlled demo room. But it seems like Apple wants to surround itself with the bunch of people who would like to praise apple no matter what. And heck, apple didn't even send them HomePod. Apple called them to review the product in the controlled demo room.

I guess this is all ok because it's just an accessory product. Imagine if Apple built a car and never sent the car out to motrotrend review or some other reputable auto reviewer, instead called verge/imore/trchcrunch type of blogger to review it in the race track made in apple campus. Would you all go ga ga over apple car and pre order it? Oh wait! People did that for Tesla model 3! My bad!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Of course they should do both in the long run, but this is version 1 of a new product and so focus is the name of the game. I don't think it's true that Apple has some great advantage here. They have basically unlimited money, but that's not the same thing as having unlimited engineering and design bandwidth. In fact, much has been written about how Apple's so-called "functional" organizational structure (as opposed to a divisional structure), unusual for such a large company, limits their ability to multitask.

Apple doesn't need "unlimited engineering & design" bandwidth. "Unlimited" is impossible for even Apple.

Personally, I DO think Apple has some great advantage here. By having so much cash, they can BUY whatever talent they need to accomplish anything. For example, the dominant issue that seems to be flying from pre-release "reviews" is that it's not as "smart" as competitors. The very same talent that built Siri built a newer, more capable Siri 2 if you will. Apple could have stepped in and purchased that to bring a better Siri to all Apple products. Did they? No, they let a competitor do that instead.

Could Apple invest more in evolving Siri 1 and at least keeping up with the Jones's? Of course they could. Alexa, Cortana, Google all were born AFTER Siri was already functional. As each rolled out any advantage, could Apple NOT at least respond in turn? Of course they could. So why didn't they?

On the speaker/home theater speaker side, could Apple buy a Sonos or a B&O or <name any great speaker company> like they purchased Beats? Certainly. Abundant cash makes it relatively easy to acquire necessary talent to dominate a space.

This "version 1" concept works well when a little competitor is putting a toe in the water and has limited resources, money, etc. Apple is FAR removed from when it was in those kinds of shoes. Apparently Apple themselves claims they've been working on this thing for 6 years. Do we really want to believe that in 6 years, version 1 excuses should be readily swallowed? Look at the crits already known about this product. Could those not be addressed in the first 6 years of development?

I don't want to be overly critical here- just point out that Apple is not limited like pretty much any other competitor here. They have the power to do BOTH. All that cash can be put to work to max out about anything they want to go after. Coming to market with tangible shortcomings implies choices to do so rather than some fundamental obstacles they could not overcome in 6 years.

 

[Uofmtiger]

And yet, how does this thing get power?

And Airplay- as nice as it is- is proprietary, part of the very lock-in limitation referenced.

Airplay really isn't lock in. Airplay works on every Windows computer with Airfoil. It works with certain HTC phones out of the box and there are some apps on Android that support it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yes, they LICENSE Airplay from Apple to make it work: https://developer.apple.com/programs/mfi/

Yes, that's not as locked in as building this thing to ONLY work (fully) with AM and similar, but still limiting. For example, I'm no big fan of leaning on BlueTooth for wireless audio, but this thing actually has BlueTooth in it, limited for only set-up purposes (at least for now). Make that fully functional in conjunction with Airplay and then it's more flexible and usable, even without an AUX port.

The point was the wish for more consumer utility & flexibility instead of such tight lock-in in general. The original post was about someone still using the old Apple iPod HiFi box 10 years later. Do many of us still have working iPods? Whether that guy's iPod still works or not is irrelevant because that HiFi product came with the flexibility to push audio to it's speakers via an AUX port.

He doesn't need an AM subscription. He doesn't need Match. He doesn't even need an iPhone, a Mac, or any other Apple product to get great use of THAT Apple product. Speakers being what they are tend to last 10-15+ years. They don't need replacing ever year or two to sound great. Flexibility & utility would be a huge benefit with this kind of product. In fact, some of the very issues even the pre-release "reviewers" are noting about it could be thoroughly solved with something as simple as a cheap AUX port.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Does it even need support? I see it like the Airpods and airport router. A minor maintenance patch every once in a while, but I don’t see major changes dropping like the Apple Watch.

It does if they move to a different airplay standard at some point.
At that point, barring updates, it's a $350 doorstop

 

[ersan191]

That's because they are paid to review, haven't seen 1 review that wasn't all OH APPLE I LOVE YOU.. Even guys that usually stay away from that type of nonsense are doing it on youtube with this.. and that's another indicator not to even bother with this product. I already have speakers, I already have assistants.. SIRI doesn't cut it. And I too love Apple products but this just isn't worth the price. Having had time with it at the keynote.. and then again recently it still isn't what it should be. Maybe if IOS 12 kicks serious butt and SIRI is actually upgraded to compete with other assistants then yes, I can see a reason to get this type of item. BUT, it don't think it's going to happen. Apple has put SIRI on the back burner, time and time again while focusing on hardware more often then not. When they take software and SIRI seriously.. then I'll start taking their hardware seriously. As I said last year, there comes a point when hardware hits its peak and the driving force needs to continue to push the envelope.. still haven't seen software go anywhere but down from Apple in the last 4-5 years.

If you honestly think Apple is paying or strongarming people into giving positive reviews you are out of your mind. They don’t have to, it’s illegal, it would be a huge blow to them if anyone talked, and nearly all of the reviews say the same thing: Siri is less than desirable on the HomePod but it’s still one of the best speakers they’ve ever heard.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple doesn't have to be the source of the pay. First reviews get a lot of eyeballs. Eyeballs drive ad revenue. There is a fundamental monetary gain realized by staying in Apple's good graces. You don't want to make the mistake of finding a pre-release iPhone in the bar and then exposing it's secrets. Has Apple become friendly toward that entity since? That was what- 8 YEARS ago now. Was the big gain in ad revenue cash then worth NOT being Apple's friend since then?

The guy to which you are responding is very, VERY likely wrong in believing that Apple PAID the pre-release review sites money to write their articles. But by being in the pre-release review pool, they certainly did make money. By staying in that pool, they likely get to pre-release review other stuff in the future. That's more early eyeballs and more ad revenue.

 

[ersan191]

Apple doesn't have to be the source of the pay. First reviews get a lot of eyeballs. Eyeballs drive ad revenue. There is a fundamental monetary gain realized by staying in Apple's good graces. You don't want to make the mistake of finding a pre-release iPhone in the bar and then exposing it's secrets. Has Apple become friendly toward that entity since? That was what- 8 YEARS ago now.

The guy to which you are responding is very, VERY likely wrong in believing that Apple PAID the pre-release review sites money to write their articles. But by being in the pre-release review pool, they certainly did make money. By staying in that pool, they likely get to pre-release review other stuff in the future. That's more early eyeballs and more ad revenue.

What Gizmodo did was technically illegal, that’s completely different - all of the publications that got prerelease have written at least one bad review for an Apple product in the past.

Have you actually ready any of the reviews? They are all pretty reasonable. They say if you aren't already invested in Apple Music or the Apple ecosystem it's better to stick to what you already have, and that it isn't worth switching just for the speaker - I don't think that is the narrative Apple is going for...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Bad or just mentioning some soft cons? I don't recall any pre-release review that was bad overall. If you know of 1+, please point me to it. And then I'll ask, have they been in the pre-release review pool since writing such a review?

Sure, they'll all drop in some soft cons- as did these. Any such review that just gushes all praise sounds suspicious on the premise that Apple cannot get everything perfect in a single try. In these reviews, they certainly wrote some soft cons... often quickly following them with the "reviewer" offering up the remedy to that con "coming soon" via "software upgrades." It could be objectivity being helpful about proactively seeing "coming soon" improvements and opting to share those. Or that could be what makes them soft cons: soft because it sounds like they are being objective but their "gripe" is readily resolved soon (so don't worry about this issue reader).

As to the Gizmodo incident, I wasn't arguing what they did was right or wrong- just providing a very tangible example of what happens when a "news" entity crosses a powerful company. By extension, if any of these "pre release" reviews just bashed the crap out of HP, do you think they would stay in the pre-release review pool? If no, they lose all that future opportunity to draw in early eyeballs near the peak of interest in brand new stuff from Apple... and thus all the ad revenue that comes from those eyeballs.

And yes, I've read ALL of the pre-release reviews. I don't see any of them as "bad." They basically say what Apple Marketing says about the product, expanding a bit to offer some pros said in other ways and some tangible- but soft (IMO) cons, readily remedied by as little as just one software update. IMO, the WORST thing they say about HP is Siri-based crits, mostly because trying to spin significantly upgrades to Siri as "just one software update away" may not be so easily swallowed by even the most fanatic of Apple fans (though technically true, we have many years of waiting on big upgrades to Siri working against even our rosiest colored glasses)

 

[ersan191]

Bad or just mentioning some soft cons? I don't recall any pre-release review that was bad overall. If you know of 1+, please point me to it. And then I'll ask, have they been in the pre-release review pool since writing such a review?

Sure, they'll all drop in some soft cons- as did these. Any such review that just gushes all praise sounds suspicious on the premise that Apple cannot get everything perfect in a single try. In these reviews, they certainly wrote some soft cons... often quickly following them with the "reviewer" offering up the remedy to that con "coming soon" via "software upgrades." It could be objectivity being helpful about proactively seeing "coming soon" improvements and opting to share those. Or that could be what makes them soft cons: soft because it sounds like they are being objective but their "gripe" is readily resolved soon (so don't worry about this issue reader).

As to the Gizmodo incident, I wasn't arguing what they did was right or wrong- just providing a very tangible example of what happens when a "news" entity crosses a powerful company. By extension, if any of these "pre release" reviews just bashed the crap out of HP, do you think they would stay in the pre-release review pool? If no, they lose all that future opportunity to draw in early eyeballs near the peak of interest in brand new stuff from Apple... and thus all the ad revenue that comes from those eyeballs.

The only truly bad product that I can think of that Apple has released recently is the Magic Mouse 2
CNET gave it a 3/5 and more or less panned it. So did TechRadar and TechCrunch - nobody else bothered reviewing it because it's a mouse.

Even just looking at some of the headlines for HomePod reviews:
NY Times: "Apple’s HomePod Has Arrived. Don’t Rush to Buy It."
CNET: "Great sound, but it's trapped in Apple's world"
Pocket-lint: "The smart sounding speaker that's just not smart enough", they literally gave it a 3/5

The consensus seems to be that Siri sucks, but it's the best sounding speaker you can buy for under $1000 - which is good enough for me and a lot of people.

If people really think places like the New York Times and USA Today are afraid of not getting new Apple products they are mental... Apple sent them units so they would get more exposure and sell more units, it's free advertising.

 

[RodoBobJon]

This "version 1" concept works well when a little competitor is putting a toe in the water and has limited resources, money, etc. Apple is FAR removed from when it was in those kinds of shoes. Apparently Apple themselves claims they've been working on this thing for 6 years. Do we really want to believe that in 6 years, version 1 excuses should be readily swallowed? Look at the crits already known about this product. Could those not be addressed in the first 6 years of development?

They've been working on the computational audio tech for 6 years. I'm sure the final vision for the HomePod as a voice-controlled smart speaker is much more recent.

I don't want to be overly critical here- just point out that Apple is not limited like pretty much any other competitor here. They have the power to do BOTH. All that cash can be put to work to max out about anything they want to go after. Coming to market with tangible shortcomings implies choices to do so rather than some fundamental obstacles they could not overcome in 6 years.

I agree that it is definitely a choice to be narrowly focused. This is how Apple usually introduces new products. When they stray from this, as with the original Apple Watch, the product comes out unfocused and messy. The original Apple Watch was justifiably criticized for trying to do far too much and not having a clearly articulated and understood purpose. It's hardware was also too slow to comfortably handle all of the things that were thrown into it. It took a few years of re-focusing around some narrowly defined areas—fitness, notifications—for the watch to really come into its own.

 

[RickInHouston]

And I see future Apple speaker/sound system products based on the adaptive beamforming technology Apple developed in HomePod.

There's loads of potential going forward.

I'd rather have uncolored sound.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The only truly bad product that I can think of that Apple has released recently is the Magic Mouse 2
CNET gave it a 3/5 and more or less panned it. So did TechRadar and TechCrunch - nobody else bothered reviewing it because it's a mouse.

Even just looking at some of the headlines for HomePod reviews:
NY Times: "Apple’s HomePod Has Arrived. Don’t Rush to Buy It."
CNET: "Great sound, but it's trapped in Apple's world"
Pocket-lint: "The smart sounding speaker that's just not smart enough", they literally gave it a 3/5

The consensus seems to be that Siri sucks, but it's the best sounding speaker you can buy for under $1000 - which is good enough for me and a lot of people.

If people really think places like the New York Times and USA Today are afraid of not getting new Apple products they are mental... Apple sent them units so they would get more exposure and sell more units, it's free advertising.

OK, but 3/5 and similar is favorable rankings. That's 3 points for and only 2 against.

And based on my reads of these HP pre-release "reviews", I don't read that "Siri sucks", nor do I get "best sounding speaker under $1000" (did I miss any of them actually writing that down like that? And was that speaker, as in ALL speakers, or just smart speakers as a subset?).

Yes, it does seem to be getting some punches that Siri is not "as smart" but that's different than "sucks." For "sucks", I'd expect a 0/5 rating. For not "as smart", it might get a 4/5 if smarter alternatives would be rated a 5/5 for smarts. 4/5 still looks stellar in such circumstances.

But bigger picture: what's it matter? If you see enough here to like it, buy it. If you don't see enough here yet, there will be more objective reviews coming very soon now. Maybe they will be even more flattering... or not. They may drive some less enthusiastic potential buyers to buy... or not.

Our little side conversation here started because someone said Apple paid for these reviews. You claimed they didn't are you are very, VERY likely right about that. My counterpoint though is that they were still paid, via ad revenue and thus carry a fundamental motivation to stay on Apple's good side to get more of the same in the future. In a few days, there will be reviews from entities that get to evaluate it by just buying one and are thus free to write whatever they actually think about it. Does that mean they will be completely objective? Not necessarily, but it likely means they will be MORE objective than those wanting to stay on the friend list.

 

[8CoreWhore]

This is one of those products that in 10 years you will see a video in youtube about "Apple products you never knew existed".

And yet you're writing about it.