Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You do not seem to truly understand the true value of a dollar. $349.99 seems reasonable? Really? And $700 for the speaker you mentioned (and everything it lacks)? Yikes!

I don’t think you seem to understand how much a good or great sounding wireless speaker costs. The $700 zeppelin wireless is one of the best sounding wireless speakers since it’s creation, there is no argument about it. If the HomePod sounds as good as people say it sounds for its size then it’s easily worth the asking price of $350. If you want a cheaper speaker you’ll pay a cheaper price, and with that cheaper price you’ll also get less than stellar sound.

Point is you get what you pay for. You’re not going to get a speaker than sounds better than the zeppelin wireless for less than what the HomePod costs. Period.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
You do not seem to truly understand the true value of a dollar. $349.99 seems reasonable? Really? And $700 for the speaker you mentioned (and everything it lacks)? Yikes!

Yes, if it sounds as good as it reportedly does, then $349.99 is absolutely reasonable, given all the the it contains to make such a small speaker sound as it reportedly does.

You know that people can, and do, pay multiple times that much for decent hifi kit?
 
So if stereo units are the rage, then which is the stereo system that costs the same as the HomePod and is actual stereo (2 units)?

Just one example.

Q Acoustics 3010: $200
Denon AVR-S530BT: $230

And since we're well under budget we'll throw in a sub for a full fledged 2.1 system and still come in $20 under budget.
Klipsch R-10SWi: $250
Total: $680
 
Was waiting for a response like this. What’s the point in spending money on any high end stereo system when all you play is compressed music. I wonder how many of the posters here have never played anything but compressed formats...

I consider myself an audiophile, and own a semi high end Quad system with a pair of Quad speakers, and some B&W Matrixes as well. For both, when you play mp3’s on them, they sound just like many other reasonable speakers, definately not worth paying for. But if you go lossless, clarity and definition in the sound just jumps in your face (or ear o_O). Those who have compared will know what I mean...

So for homepod, I really can’t judge from these “reviews” if they’re worth spending on... or at least more worth it than something half the price.

Well said.
 
Apple is jabbing at Bose and Sonos with the HomePod, not Amazon or Google. Those that have an iPhone and Apple Music subscription already can now get a simple to use speaker that sounds great for streaming Apple Music at a $350 price point that’s simpler to use than Sonos app or Bose soundtouch app. Sonos Play 5 is $499 and Bose Soundtouch 20 is $350. I’d say the Sonos Play 5 will blow away the HomePod, I have 2 in a stereo pair in my back room.

I have one echo which I use to control lights and set timers and alarms, it can control sonos now but it’s awkward. I listen to mostly classical music which I stream my cd collection lossless through murfie.com or use my SACD player or turntable for the best quality sound. I do have an Apple Music family subscription for all the iPhones and iPads, I might get a HomePod for an extra room but not till it’s out and on sale or a open box return at Best Buy.

Also it’s not supposed to be hifi competitor like Bose is ridiculed by hifi enthusiasts, and even now Sonos has gone mainstream which used to be just hifi shops that sold them. The niche of people that spend the serious cash for McIntosh tube amps and Martin Logan speakers both of which I’ve listened to shouldn’t be compared to HomePod with its lossy streaming.
 
Last edited:
Was waiting for a response like this. What’s the point in spending money on any high end stereo system when all you play is compressed music. I wonder how many of the posters here have never played anything but compressed formats...

I consider myself an audiophile, and own a semi high end Quad system with a pair of Quad speakers, and some B&W Matrixes as well. For both, when you play mp3’s on them, they sound just like many other reasonable speakers, definately not worth paying for. But if you go lossless, clarity and definition in the sound just jumps in your face (or ear o_O). Those who have compared will know what I mean...

So for homepod, I really can’t judge from these “reviews” if they’re worth spending on... or at least more worth it than something half the price.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ke-iron
Just one example.

Q Acoustics 3010: $200
Denon AVR-S530BT: $230

And since we're well under budget we'll throw in a sub for a full fledged 2.1 system and still come in $20 under budget.
Klipsch R-10SWi: $250
Total: $680

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

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: johngordon and EdT
Why do products need to solve a problem?

But since you asked, I can drop one of these in the kitchen, and use my phone to cue up and play music, without having to go and fiddle with the iPod currently sat in a dock connected to a little Sony thing.

Sure, its a First World Problem, but its still going to be less hassle and more convenient. And if they sound as good as they reportedly do, then I'm in.

Umm...you shouldn't have to use your iphone to cue up music with this. That's the point. May as well get a cheap BT speaker otherwise.

However, I don't need a limited premium speaker with no screen (in the kitchen). That would be stupid. I use an ipad hooked up to a cheap BT speaker. Hey siri works with it. Can watch tv, view recipes, or gasp..play apple music. I think it was Apple's Phil Schiller that already said he didn't see the point of one of these without a screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
The reason to never buy a Samsung is due to the fact they run on Android.

The reason to never buy a HomePod is due to the fact that it runs on Siri.
 
My $30000 Duntech Crown Sovereigns want to cash u outside, how 'bout that?
But in all seriousness, after the $5k point, you begin encountering seriously diminishing returns.
You sound like someone who can only afford to spend $5k on hifi. Pauper...
 
Hey, Considering me as a Spotify user and an Iphone user, should i wait for the HomePod or get a Beolit 17 instead?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jomsjoms
Umm...you shouldn't have to use your iphone to cue up music with this. That's the point. May as well get a cheap BT speaker otherwise.

However, I don't need a limited premium speaker with no screen (in the kitchen). That would be stupid. I use an ipad hooked up to a cheap BT speaker. Hey siri works with it. Can watch tv, view recipes, or gasp..play apple music. I think it was Apple's Phil Schiller that already said he didn't see the point of one of these without a screen.

In addition, a lot of us ALREADY have an :apple:TV, probably ALREADY hooked to the best speakers we own. :apple:TV has Siri voice controls and AM built within it. It's also a full airplay solution too for all of the scenarios where "but you can airplay that to HP". And :apple:TV has native apps, so you can have non-AM sources like Pandora playing music on it without airplayING... which includes making it useful when the mobile device from which you might airplay to HP is out of the house with you and those still at home want to enjoy the sound system too.

And if you don't have :apple:TV? You can buy 2 of them for the price of 1 HP.

Or buy 1 :apple:TV and use the balance toward buying whatever quality of speaker(s) you want.

And lastly: enjoy the many other benefits that come with :apple:TV that can never be "just one software update" away in HP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cardfan
The reason to never buy a Samsung is due to the fact they run on Android.

The reason to never buy a HomePod is due to the fact that it runs on Siri.
Also, that you likely already have something to play music on, and that Siri has always been largely hopeless.
 
I wonder if you’re able to stream music while your away from the WiFi network.

No mention of it. This is the one major thing Apple is lacking. Sonos can do it, Spotify can do it with speakers that support Spotify connect. Why doesn’t Apple have this feature yet built into airplay and wireless speakers? I hate when I’m doing something else on my phone or iPad and the music is interrupted.
 
Hey, Considering me as a Spotify user and an Iphone user, should i wait for the HomePod or get a Beolit 17 instead?

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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.