Nic's Fix for HomePods
Apple HomePod Repair, DIY, Service & Customization for Apple Speaker | Nic's Fix
track44.moe
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.
iFixit Tears Down Second-Generation HomePod
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sound bounces off walls, so if done correctly using audio processors, this can actually be excellent.
In fact, Dolby Atmos relies on the principle of sound reverberating off ceilings and floors. It's very common practice.
Example:
You are looking forward to seeing the breakdown of a product that doesn't exist?
Reasonable analysis from the Application Notes and completely fair. Worth noting that the peak power is impossible to sustain in these applications. The system is entirely non-linear until you hit the LPF which makes it hard to rationalise the switching dynamics and total PD of the output MOSFETs. But yes the THD will suffer most likely when the low-side/high-side current detection starts seeing MOSFETs starting to heat up.
The PCB designs in that link are however, crap and are built by people who have no idea what they are doing. It looks like a simple 2-layer design kicked out by JLCPCB/PCBway etc. There is no thermal via stitching, the layout is completely wrong and just has a simple ground fill on both layers. If it's JLC's usual process it'll be 1oz copper. You tend to use 2oz when there's a heatsink on board and structure it so there's a fair bit of board without a solder mask on it. Basically half of that entire board's heat sinking capability they designed does nothing at all which will invalidate any test results they have. This is mentioned in the app note as well for ref.
I definitely don’t want a battery in my home speakers
Go and buy whatever you prefer. I want the HomePod
ifixit - what a cool job to have to tear stuff apart with presicion - and hopefully successfully put if back together again
What I want answered, as I haven’t seen discussed during any tear down, are all of the points of failure in the hardware in the original HomePod. Be it a capacitor or resistor, whatever, did they take that into account, all those massive failures grouped around specific devices, and did they update the hardware so we wouldn’t lose our $300 investment on a half a penny SMD capacitor!!!
Au-contrarie, mon fraire! Apple has a clear upgrade plan for the HomePods. It may not be yearly, but with processor with very old Wifi and fewer tweeters and microphones, Apple has telegraphed exactly what they plan to do. That is how you maintain a solid product pipeline with near or above 40% margins.
Improved repairability is great for everyone, lets just hope they don't need it.
All of the hyperbole about the differences between the new and the OG crack me up. Once Apple stops letting the OG update to the latest software it wont matter if it sounds ever so slightly better than the OG, it will essentially be obsolete.
All of the hyperbole about the differences between the new and the OG crack me up. Once Apple stops letting the OG update to the latest software it wont matter if it sounds ever so slightly better than the OG, it will essentially be obsolete.
…only if you think faster wifi on a device that won’t benefit at all from it given it’s use-case, is somehow incentive for people that couldn’t tell the difference between a processor and a toaster to upgrade.
From what I recall, the custom power supply seemed to be the failure point. The specific component I can’t remember but likely a capacitor like you mentioned.
It's not about what the customer wants or needs, but rather what can be advertised. Even if people won't notice a difference, being able to advertise something like "revolutionary WiFi and Bluetooth that allows for even more responsive, seamless integration," will catch a lot of people.
Nope. On the contrary, I think some people seek out any reason to complain about a product just because it isn't exactly what they want. In this case, the HomePod is not a regular conic front facing speaker. Period.
In the case of placement, I have no idea (or do you) where the majority of people put their HomePod. We can make assumptions they treat them like regular conic front facing speakers, and use them if they chose with a back firmly against the wall, or they can offset them any distance they care to, or put them on their desk facing the middle of my office. I have 5 HomePods in a variety of placements and really do like the flexibility the computational audio provides for spatial audio. If what I want is regular front facing conic speakers.. guess what I buy? Regular front facing conic speakers (Sonos comes to mind if you want wireless). I dont fault Apple for not making regular front facing conic speakers.
I do agree with you on one thing, some people are trying to purposefully ignore any nuance in a discussion to score points. Congrats.
And you pretty much wanted stock in Duracell or Energizer for how often you needed to change them.
Catch them for upgrades, or first time buyers? I can see how a marketing push may influence new buyers, but you’d be hard pressed to convince an owner of one of these devices that it needs faster wifi…because it doesn’t for what it does.
It's hard to disagree with that.
The self-correcting nature of the HP is undervalued. I'd rather one mono HP than a far more expensive stereo pair that has been situated incorrectly (which, due to architectural constraints, most are) or where I'm not aligned with the ideal listening position (a pretty small target at the best of times; there's a reason big venues sum to mono).
That’s not what Apple is going for. They are trying to catch anyone who is wowed by “new, incredible, best ever, faster, more responsive, etc.” using Apple’s tried-and-true PR. Just look at how they’re advertising the iPhone 14. It is called the “All New iPhone 14,” as if there was an old iPhone 14. They’ll continue this right up until the day they announce the iPhone 15.
But explain to me how that marketing strategy would apply to a device category with the shelf life of a speaker?
I’m talking about the re-release of the HomePod. Apple discontinued the original HomePod because it had too much and there was no clear upgrade path. By remove tweeters and microphones and using a processor with past-generation WiFi and Bluetooth, Apple created a clear upgrade path.
That’s….wow. I’m not even sure how to entertain that line of thinking.
No one is suffering any performance issues from “last generation wifi”. 802.11n is far and away fast enough for anything the HomePod does. The notion that you’ll get people buying speakers, things that average people buy like twice a decade at the extreme edge, to buy for a spec on a page that will have no demonstrable or tangible impact on the usage of device is a real stretch.
You have no evidence why Apple discontinued the HomePod. It's all speculation.
I appreciate the cynicism and all but I'm willing to put money on Apple continuing to support the just released model (if not the original) through 2030. Sure, they're going to improve it and yes, they're going to sell the incremental upgrades as the Next Best Thing but I'm smart enough to see through that and I'm sure you are too.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong. But honestly, who actually cares what version of WIFI is in play in a speaker? I care that I can send data to it and that it sounds fantastic. It's not going to sound any less good because they sell an upgraded model. Never, in my experience (and I started my programming career on an Apple II), have they deliberately crippled their hardware retroactively. Some of it has been absolute crap but, eh, so has some of my work; it's never been on purpose.
Last edited: