The bigger one would only be a "whoops" if someone wants to put in in the middle of a room with chairs surrounding it. In that case 360 sound would be preferable, and Homepod or something similar to it might be the way to go. But considering the size I personally would not expect most folks to put either a HomePod or Max in the middle of a room.
What you're forgetting here is that it's a compact unit, so the sound quality to either side of it is going to be an issue vs. HomePod regardless of where you put it. That's the problem that Apple was solving with the circular array of tweeters and beam forming capability, i.e., how do you make a compact system have a wider sound stage and achieve higher quality sound throughout a room. Compact systems with forward facing speakers definitely lose something when you're off to the side of them.
That would give the HomePod an advantage in placement flexibility, *IF* -- and it's a big "if" -- that beam-forming pattern control actual works well and doesn't wind up being a soupy, swishy mess of phase and comb filtering effects.
I'm not saying the HomePod won't be excellent at this, just that it's too soon to know. The 360 degree approach is risky. If it's not done well, the forward-facing speakers in the Google could actuality be better.
There will be audiophile comparisons of the two before long. Bloggers can't help themselves.
Not really an audiophile issue. Google's speaker isn't designed to provide the same sound quality regardless of the listener's position in the room.
I wasn't aware you had heard both of them in the same rooms.
I was going to respond with something similar, but changed my mind based on @foregoneconclusion using the words "designed to." We do know that flexibility in listening position was a design goal for the HomePod, and the physical characteristics of the Home Max favour a traditional hemispherical dispersion pattern. How that plays out in real life and whether it even matters remain to be seen, but there is a difference in design intentions.
gatorguy said: [...] No company has more dedicated fans with a seemingly insatiable appetite for anything Apple.
I kinda get it. "Sticky ecosystem" is a really good description. Most of what I do within the ecosystem can be accomplished by other means and with products that aren't made by Apple, but they all require active involvement on my part. With Apple stuff I get those benefits passively. I don't have to do or know anything. Whenever I look into alternatives to Apple for networking or media consumption or communications, I always wind up with one link missing from the chain somewhere. That means when I choose a computer or a phone or a TV interface, I consider it in the larger context of how that device will integrate with the rest of my stuff, rather than simply evaluating a device on its own merits in isolation.
It's entirely possible that there are better and/or less expensive approaches for those with more interest and knowledge, but for passive dummies like me, it's hard to beat having someone else do all the thinking.
Comments
I'm not saying the HomePod won't be excellent at this, just that it's too soon to know. The 360 degree approach is risky. If it's not done well, the forward-facing speakers in the Google could actuality be better.
It's entirely possible that there are better and/or less expensive approaches for those with more interest and knowledge, but for passive dummies like me, it's hard to beat having someone else do all the thinking.