Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There was no getting units at all. They came into a room and listened to an Apple-managed demo. They very likely went home without HPs.

If they did get to take one home, they signed papers promising not to provide fully objective reviews until after some date chosen by Apple.
I agree with this and your other posts.

But one thing that is lost in the discussion in favor of the HomePod:

This is Apple's hands-free, home-automation hub -- the HomeKit Hub.

Those vested in the Apple HomeKit world, will consider the HomePod to be the go-to device, and AppleMusic player/speakers just extra gravy.

And, Siri conversational skills, or lack thereof, when compared to others be dammed.
 
Last edited:
Does the Homepod have that Siri light on the top that they show on the site page or is that just for advertising effect?
 
Last edited:
I agree with this and your other posts.

But one thing that is lost in the discussion in favor of the HomePod:

This is Apple's hands-fee, home-automation hub -- the HomeKit Hub.

Those vested in the Apple HomeKit world, will consider the HomePod to be the go-to device, and AppleMusic player/speakers just extra gravy.

And, Siri conversational skills, or lack thereof, when compared to others be dammed.

I guess. But :apple:TV has long been pitched exactly for that too. For all the time since HomeKit has been out, IT has been spun as the homekit hub. Here's Apple doing that themselves in their own words: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207057 Here's an official announcement of it as the hub from way back in 2015: http://www.zdnet.com/article/yes-apple-tv-will-be-a-homekit-hub/
 
Last edited:
Bose makes some of the most overpriced and below average products you can buy. People think Apple is overpriced, but at least it’s good quality. Bose is utterly junk and hated in the audio community. No one even talks about them seriously or considers their products.
Wow we agree on something. Bose sounds like garbage.

But Bose is successful. Must be doing something right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baymowe335 and Huck
I get what you are saying - if you are playing compressed music, then there will probably be diminishing returns if you start spending some serious money on top end separates.

But even with compressed music, I think its worth spending a reasonable amount, as you can certainly appreciate a difference. I know music on my phone sounds way better on my Bowers and Wilkins P3s compared to the supplied EarPods. And similarly I'm prepared to bet I would appreciate a difference between something like an Echo or a cheap speaker, and something like a Sonos or the HomePod.

Now to a proper audiophile who is used to much better quality and clarity of lossless through high end separates, a Sonos or HomePod will probably sound less good to them. But if you're not used to that, and just want something better than a really cheap $50 speaker, then the Sonos or HomePod will certainly sound better.

It would be great if Apple started to offer lossless on Apple Music - heck, they must have the financial and server clout to do so by now, and if in the HomePod they have a speaker that can really take advantage of that, then who knows.

The crux of my complaint isn't the HomePod itself. It might be a marvelous piece of engineering that gets the best sound out of it's source material better than anything near it's price range. But Apple has decided that this hardware's primary purpose is to push their subscription service. If the entire reason for existence of this product, which the backstory that Apple has released say it is, was to get the best sound in a small package then allow people to connect their best music sources to the device. No artificial limitations. Because the data input for this is wifi, so the packet layout and information standards have been in place for years. No one company controls implementation of how data needs to be formatted to use ethernet or wifi. Opening it up would have no effect on how good of an AI assistant Siri is, either. There isn't a hardware reason** that Apple can't allow any and every digital music source access to the HomePod, and it wouldn't take a redesign of the hardware to allow it. This software limitation is a marketing decision to sell their streaming service, period.

Free the HomePod.

**There may be licensing (legal) reasons, but then the fault lies with that company and not Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
My speakers cost €88,000 and are made from platinum, petrified swamp ash and the skin of newborn babies. Please don't try to strike up a conversation.

/serious


My speaker is made from the foreskin of cloned baby T-rexes (more than one) and some of Abe Lincoln's beard.
Nothing's too good for good sound and bragging right.
You don't deserve to breathe my air ;-).
 
My $10,000 Martin Logan Static Dryer Sheet powered speakers would like to have a word with you.

/s
___________________________________________
I have Martin Logan ESL.....I bought them used and paid less than $900 and I love them...unless you hear ESL...you should not trash them....the Apple speakers quality should be compared in the same room with bookshelf speakers of the same price to make an evaluation valid.
 
If you don't mind airplay, you can throw your Spotify playback to HP (but not use Siri to control it- in this scenario YOU become the "smarts" part of the equation).

If you really want a smart speaker that uses it's smarts to manage Spotify playback without engaging Airplay, the other players are not so locked into AM as the sole source of audio.

How abt the sound quality? do u think the editors are just exaggerating?
 
Not quite: the Apple TV is not hands-free (unless you carry the remote with you *grin*).

+1.

However IMO, it feels like we're increasingly reaching. It reminds me of when the watch rolled out and was getting pounded by the "but my iPhone can do that (better)" and people started cooking up scenarios where reaching in their pocket was some big chore and/or the time-savings vs. reaching in their pocket was important... or trying to make the ability to see their heart beating into some huge thing.

I don't want to come across as NOT seeing any application here. Very tangibly, a key application is music in any room where no speaker already exists. In many homes, there might be 3-5+ rooms like that. Somebody posted about putting one of these in their garage. Some are thinking bathrooms.. Someone is going to try to get it working in their car. Maybe it can get working on a boat and in an RV, decked out SUV/Van?

I have a lot of friends with competing devices already. They love them, mostly as a ridiculously simple way to get a little music playing without having to click some button or turn something on. They're practically magical to them by being able to ask them simple questions like "what's the weather forecast" and "what time is <movie> playing today?" and similar and it giving them accurate answers. And that's enough. And they are happy with the money they spent for that. And some of them have iPhones that can do up to all of that too but they don't care.

I'm confident this thing will sell very well. It seems like a lot of us are trying to make it fit into all kinds of use scenarios as almost an end-all, be-all solution but there is plenty of market in the spare room(s) with no speakers now. All this other spin is practically NOT needed to find places for buyers to place this thing and enjoy it.

Every weekend: the local pool has someone bringing their portable bluetooth speakers (of various brands) to bring some music to the pool while they are there. It's DEFINITELY not audiophile quality but it's music where otherwise there would be none. Take that bolded line, look around a home and you'll probably spot a place(s) where an HP could be inserted and enjoyed for many years to come. Or an Echo or Google or Sonos.
 
Last edited:
Not much better; due to multiple reasons, people who have bought the product aren't the most reliable source for info either. For one, many have a love affair with their purchase and can be prepositioned to neglect flaws, few have good comparisons points, etc... List is long.
You’ll have to wait until you hear them in person to form your own subjective opinion. Which will be worthless to to anyone who isn’t you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdT
From my perspective there are at least 2 still-not-(much)-covered big upsides (maybe even "one more thing"-type upsides) that might come from the release of HomePod:
  1. How much did Apple smarten up Siri to better compete with the generally perceived smarter VAs of key competitors? Assuming the answer is at least some, a smarter Siri probably comes to the rest of the Apple line-up soon.
  2. Given the overwhelming focus on better quality sound, near-term objective reviews are probably going to hammer away at the "limitation" of only AM as a Siri-controlled source and poke at the conflict of spinning superior sound hardware fed by a compressed audio source. If the hardware is as superior as spun- and that's probably true to some degree- it is maximized by the best quality source audio that can be fed to it. Conceptually- for now- that means it's going to sound better when someone is airplaying it Tidal or lossless rips than using the "smarts" part to play 256kbps AAC Plus. That might put some pressure on Apple to offer higher quality or maybe even lossless versions of the library to feed HP higher quality music sources, much as one can buy or rent iTunes store videos at SD, 720p, 1080p and now 4K versions. Maybe Apple is moved to offer 256kpbs versions and lossless versions via Apple Music too? There is a logic here: Apple is the one pushing quality of sound so hard to help sell this product. A million dollar Apple speaker would be limited by the quality of the source fed to it.

I do think Apple offers their version of lossless via Apple Music. My Apple Music files that are downloaded to my phone are a bit large in file size. The average 3-4 minute song is about 8MB. Other songs that are 6,7,8 minutes long minutes long are up to 19MB in file size.
Not absolutely sure if this is their losses, but it sounds absolutely amazing on my zeppelin wireless. Will tidal sound much better on this?
 
I agree with this and your other posts.

But one thing that is lost in the discussion in favor of the HomePod:

This is Apple's hands-free, home-automation hub -- the HomeKit Hub.

Those vested in the Apple HomeKit world, will consider the HomePod to be the go-to device, and AppleMusic player/speakers just extra gravy.

And, Siri conversational skills, or lack thereof, when compared to others be dammed.
If any of that was true why are Apple selling it as a high quality speaker?
 
How abt the sound quality? do u think the editors are just exaggerating?

It's an Apple product. I'm sure it sounds great. However, contrary to group opinion here, the others don't sound terrible either. And note the TV story I shared back in post #198. Control a demo and you can make anything stand out from other things.

For example, lets suppose you have purchased a brand new, quality 4K TV. Let's put it in a room against a 1080p TV, a 720p TV and even an SD TV. Let's hide the brands and anything that would help you tell which is yours vs these others. Then, let's take some time to play with settings. Then, lets get our demo material together to support whatever conclusion we seek. Do this right, and we might be able to get you to pick even the SD set as "best" picture.

Again, I personally expect this product to be a typically Apple-great product. I expect it will sound great. I'm just able to see the difference between an Apple controlled-demo and truly objective reviews. There's a lot of magic that can be done in a controlled demo that can make whatever you want to push seem superior. Watch the video in post #198 for a taste of that kind of thing too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
Sonos One is probably the closest competition for this. I have a Google Home - I like the voice features but the sound quality is terrible.

I'm hesitant to consider the HomePod without Spotify support, however.
 
Apple managed to put good sound in a small package.
Like they've done with iPhones since the 7, MacBooks since the 12", iPads since the first Pro etc.
That's something they've really figured out by now.

What I'm asking myself:
Is size really important for a home speaker? Do I care about that?
Price is another issue. You're getting a speaker with Siri. That's about it.

There are multiple ways of achieving this functionality cheaper.
For people outside of the Apple universe: get a cheap Chromecast (or even better: Google Home mini), plug it into an existing speaker, done.
For people inside of the Apple universe: get a Bluetooth dongle, plug it into an existing speaker, connect your iPhone, have about 99% of the functionality, done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus and fokmik
That Denon receiver is Bluetooth only. The model that includes WiFi is $400+.

Why does the receiver need Wi-Fi? Presumably whatever source someone is using, like an ATV, will have Wi-Fi. My receiver has Wi-Fi and the only thing I use it for are firmware updates.

But will it sound as good as 2 HomePods? Or a dedicated wireless stereo speaker that costs $700-$1000? Highly unlikely.

The constraint posed was ~$700, not $700-$1000. Secondly, a 2.1 setup for $700 dollars is almost always likely to be better than two HomePods. If nothing else just because of the subwoofer. Even my floorstanding speakers with dual 6.5" drivers only goes down to 34Hz. The HomePod probably isn't going to go much below 50 Hz at best which means you're missing out on a lot of audio information right off the bat that the 2.1 setup will be able to reproduce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
I do think Apple offers their version of lossless via Apple Music. My Apple Music files that are downloaded to my phone are a bit large in file size. The average 3-4 minute song is about 8MB. Other songs that are 6,7,8 minutes long minutes long are up to 19MB in file size.
Not absolutely sure if this is their losses, but it sounds absolutely amazing on my zeppelin wireless. Will tidal sound much better on this?

No. AM is NOT providing Apple Lossless. That would be a very big deal and very well known if that was available. AAC can sound great- and does sound great. Many people may not even be able to hear a difference depending on how they listen to music.

Tidal's big advantage is the source file is lossless- not compressed like pretty much everyone elses. Of course "we" hate Tidal around here (mostly because it is NOT Apple. Note that we used to generally love Spotify & Pandora too before Apple decided to step into their pond.), but no one can argue that an AM music file is a better quality source than the same music from Tidal.

Conceptually, if this is the (up to) audiophile speaker some of us are trying to spin, it will sound it's very best being fed a higher quality of audio file... just as a 4K TV begs for a 4K source video file, instead of 1080p or 720p or an SD file. Whether you (or I) can hear a difference or not is ear of the beholder, but no one can argue about quality of sound in hardware while ignoring quality of sound source and pretend the latter wouldn't matter.

In fact, if I was in charge of the demo show as described in this thread, I'd be feeding the speaker I want to get reviewed the best lossless music while feeding the others something like a 64kbps version of the same music.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.