Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
I wouldn't sweat it. Apple took a similar approach with the iPhone X, letting some websites and YouTubers get controlled hands-on time with representatives watching over their shoulder. The product doesn't launch for two weeks, they are probably just spacing out their media strategy to remain in the news cycle.
Neil, I didn't pay attention the the X review timing but you're saying they didn't supply review units to anyone before the pre-orders began? Now that I've gone back to look the first REAL in-depth X reviews didn't happen until a couple days after pre-orders began. So in-depth reviews of the Home Pod should probably start hitting the main sites next week. Thanks!
Yes, reviews of the iPhone X (and 8) didn't hit until after preorders began. That's normal practice for Apple. For example, iPhone 8 preorders began Sept. 15, but review embargo did not lift until the next week, on Sept. 19.
Also worth noting that the iPhone 8 officially launched on Sept. 22, just 7 days after preorders began. And the reviews arrived three days before launch. With HomePod, there is a two-week window. So we may not see review embargoes lift until Feb. 6-7-ish.
(I haven't been asked to sign an embargo, so I'm not withholding any inside info, just speculating.)
If you think about it, this is probably a good strategy for Apple. As seen on this very thread, initial sales for a pre-order are already built in. Apple has a good enough track record that a lot of people will buy the thing sight-unseen. Out in review world, even if a product is flawless, there is a decent chance that some reviewer will seek attention (and clicks) by writing a bad review. If that sort of thing is written before preorder sales and manages to generate enough negative buzz, it could dampen those sales, as some people decide to 'wait and see.' Then, even if the negative review is based entirely on false or distorted information or just plain made up criticisms, the next big news after that is about how pre-order numbers are disappointing. The result is a perfectly good product fighting an uphill battle on release. Heck, there are people who have already posted plenty of negative information about the HomePod on sites like this one, having never seen or heard the thing. Some appeared out of nowhere just to do that, which is at least potentially the dirty work of competitors.
So by tightly controlling access to the device until well after pre-sales begin, Apple can limit the potential damage of an attention seeker or of intentional sabotage. With that delay, even if someone puts out that misleading review and it gets some buzz, Apple follows it with a report of robust pre-order sales, and next, all those pre-orders start arriving and the customers themselves generate buzz about how much they like the thing. Mind you, this strategy wouldn't help if Apple were to actually produce a real turnip, but if the product is a good one, this way limits their exposure to negative opportunism, and primes the pump for positive buzz.
Would we be saying the same thing if it was someone else not named Apple? You might be right as to why Apple is cutting back on early reviews but I think if Apple was really confident in what they were shipping they wouldn’t be worried about reviews. And besides they can still control who gets review units. So if they know a certain outlet is just about clicks then don’t give them a review unit.
Of course it matters that it’s a company named Apple. Apple has the success level now where presale reviews offer less value, and Apple is the ultimate clickbait magnet. Any and every issue is magnified out of proportion, so presale reviews are as likely to do harm than good. If you run a business, why take on that risk?
Your position demonstrates time and again that you cannot imagine things from the point of view of a business or person responsible for a product. I’ve built and launched products and this is definitely stuff they have to think about. Risk vs reward.
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
I wouldn't sweat it. Apple took a similar approach with the iPhone X, letting some websites and YouTubers get controlled hands-on time with representatives watching over their shoulder. The product doesn't launch for two weeks, they are probably just spacing out their media strategy to remain in the news cycle.
Neil, I didn't pay attention the the X review timing but you're saying they didn't supply review units to anyone before the pre-orders began? Now that I've gone back to look the first REAL in-depth X reviews didn't happen until a couple days after pre-orders began. So in-depth reviews of the Home Pod should probably start hitting the main sites next week. Thanks!
Yes, reviews of the iPhone X (and 8) didn't hit until after preorders began. That's normal practice for Apple. For example, iPhone 8 preorders began Sept. 15, but review embargo did not lift until the next week, on Sept. 19.
Also worth noting that the iPhone 8 officially launched on Sept. 22, just 7 days after preorders began. And the reviews arrived three days before launch. With HomePod, there is a two-week window. So we may not see review embargoes lift until Feb. 6-7-ish.
(I haven't been asked to sign an embargo, so I'm not withholding any inside info, just speculating.)
If you think about it, this is probably a good strategy for Apple. As seen on this very thread, initial sales for a pre-order are already built in. Apple has a good enough track record that a lot of people will buy the thing sight-unseen. Out in review world, even if a product is flawless, there is a decent chance that some reviewer will seek attention (and clicks) by writing a bad review. If that sort of thing is written before preorder sales and manages to generate enough negative buzz, it could dampen those sales, as some people decide to 'wait and see.' Then, even if the negative review is based entirely on false or distorted information or just plain made up criticisms, the next big news after that is about how pre-order numbers are disappointing. The result is a perfectly good product fighting an uphill battle on release. Heck, there are people who have already posted plenty of negative information about the HomePod on sites like this one, having never seen or heard the thing. Some appeared out of nowhere just to do that, which is at least potentially the dirty work of competitors.
So by tightly controlling access to the device until well after pre-sales begin, Apple can limit the potential damage of an attention seeker or of intentional sabotage. With that delay, even if someone puts out that misleading review and it gets some buzz, Apple follows it with a report of robust pre-order sales, and next, all those pre-orders start arriving and the customers themselves generate buzz about how much they like the thing. Mind you, this strategy wouldn't help if Apple were to actually produce a real turnip, but if the product is a good one, this way limits their exposure to negative opportunism, and primes the pump for positive buzz.
Agree with you, but also consider that sometimes reviews help the product. See: Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular and the Wi-Fi connectivity bug. Had Apple provided review units earlier (even if the embargo remained the same), they could have presumably had more time to find out about and fix what was, for a very short while, a legit show-stopping bug for LTE users. You can bet your bottom dollar that Apple would have liked to have a day-one patch to fix that bug for faithful fans who preordered before reviews went live.
In the end, the Wi-Fi bug was a minor blip on the radar. Still shouldn't have happened, though.
Actually Gruber wrote about the opposite of your theory being true — that what was in fact a minor bug got blown into something much worse than it was IRL, harming sales, and that those reviews likely contributed to Apple’s decision on the next launch (X). Joanna Stern trolled Apple so much in her review that she dinged it for not having “all day” battery life and requiring recharging after leaving her phone at home and trying to use the Watch as her primary comms device, despite it clearly not being designed for that use case. Reviewers like her aren’t reviewing what the product is designed to do and instead or reviewing what they want or wished it to do, and that didn’t benefit Apple, arguably harmed. So it’s no surprise they’re backing off giving media early content for clicks now.
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
I wouldn't sweat it. Apple took a similar approach with the iPhone X, letting some websites and YouTubers get controlled hands-on time with representatives watching over their shoulder. The product doesn't launch for two weeks, they are probably just spacing out their media strategy to remain in the news cycle.
Neil, I didn't pay attention the the X review timing but you're saying they didn't supply review units to anyone before the pre-orders began? Now that I've gone back to look the first REAL in-depth X reviews didn't happen until a couple days after pre-orders began. So in-depth reviews of the Home Pod should probably start hitting the main sites next week. Thanks!
Yes, reviews of the iPhone X (and 8) didn't hit until after preorders began. That's normal practice for Apple. For example, iPhone 8 preorders began Sept. 15, but review embargo did not lift until the next week, on Sept. 19.
Also worth noting that the iPhone 8 officially launched on Sept. 22, just 7 days after preorders began. And the reviews arrived three days before launch. With HomePod, there is a two-week window. So we may not see review embargoes lift until Feb. 6-7-ish.
(I haven't been asked to sign an embargo, so I'm not withholding any inside info, just speculating.)
If you think about it, this is probably a good strategy for Apple. As seen on this very thread, initial sales for a pre-order are already built in. Apple has a good enough track record that a lot of people will buy the thing sight-unseen. Out in review world, even if a product is flawless, there is a decent chance that some reviewer will seek attention (and clicks) by writing a bad review. If that sort of thing is written before preorder sales and manages to generate enough negative buzz, it could dampen those sales, as some people decide to 'wait and see.' Then, even if the negative review is based entirely on false or distorted information or just plain made up criticisms, the next big news after that is about how pre-order numbers are disappointing. The result is a perfectly good product fighting an uphill battle on release. Heck, there are people who have already posted plenty of negative information about the HomePod on sites like this one, having never seen or heard the thing. Some appeared out of nowhere just to do that, which is at least potentially the dirty work of competitors.
So by tightly controlling access to the device until well after pre-sales begin, Apple can limit the potential damage of an attention seeker or of intentional sabotage. With that delay, even if someone puts out that misleading review and it gets some buzz, Apple follows it with a report of robust pre-order sales, and next, all those pre-orders start arriving and the customers themselves generate buzz about how much they like the thing. Mind you, this strategy wouldn't help if Apple were to actually produce a real turnip, but if the product is a good one, this way limits their exposure to negative opportunism, and primes the pump for positive buzz.
Agree with you, but also consider that sometimes reviews help the product. See: Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular and the Wi-Fi connectivity bug. Had Apple provided review units earlier (even if the embargo remained the same), they could have presumably had more time to find out about and fix what was, for a very short while, a legit show-stopping bug for LTE users. You can bet your bottom dollar that Apple would have liked to have a day-one patch to fix that bug for faithful fans who preordered before reviews went live.
In the end, the Wi-Fi bug was a minor blip on the radar. Still shouldn't have happened, though.
Actually Gruber wrote about the opposite of your theory being true — that what was in fact a minor bug got blown into something much worse than it was IRL, harming sales, and that those reviews likely contributed to Apple’s decision on the next launch (X). Joanna Stern trolled Apple so much in her review that she dinged it for not having “all day” battery life and requiring recharging after leaving her phone at home and trying to use the Watch as her primary comms device, despite it clearly not being designed for that use case. Reviewers like her aren’t reviewing what the product is designed to do and instead or reviewing what they want or wished it to do, and that didn’t benefit Apple, arguably harmed. So it’s no surprise they’re backing off giving media early content for clicks now.
Except they're not "backing off giving media early content clicks." There will be review units provided prior to launch, just as there always have been. And review embargoes will lift 2-3 days before the product finds its way to consumers, just as the company has always done. You're right, it's no surprise, because nothing has changed.
I was making the argument that Apple should provide review units to the media more than a week before product launch, whenever possible, because it could help them squash bugs by the time it launches to the public. But then again, I work for the media, and would like to have more time to fairly test a product before reviewing it, so my perspective is skewed.
As for your suggestion that something changed in a significant way with the iPhone X launch? The handset became available Nov. 3. Our review was published Nov. 1.
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
I wouldn't sweat it. Apple took a similar approach with the iPhone X, letting some websites and YouTubers get controlled hands-on time with representatives watching over their shoulder. The product doesn't launch for two weeks, they are probably just spacing out their media strategy to remain in the news cycle.
Neil, I didn't pay attention the the X review timing but you're saying they didn't supply review units to anyone before the pre-orders began? Now that I've gone back to look the first REAL in-depth X reviews didn't happen until a couple days after pre-orders began. So in-depth reviews of the Home Pod should probably start hitting the main sites next week. Thanks!
Yes, reviews of the iPhone X (and 8) didn't hit until after preorders began. That's normal practice for Apple. For example, iPhone 8 preorders began Sept. 15, but review embargo did not lift until the next week, on Sept. 19.
Also worth noting that the iPhone 8 officially launched on Sept. 22, just 7 days after preorders began. And the reviews arrived three days before launch. With HomePod, there is a two-week window. So we may not see review embargoes lift until Feb. 6-7-ish.
(I haven't been asked to sign an embargo, so I'm not withholding any inside info, just speculating.)
If you think about it, this is probably a good strategy for Apple. As seen on this very thread, initial sales for a pre-order are already built in. Apple has a good enough track record that a lot of people will buy the thing sight-unseen. Out in review world, even if a product is flawless, there is a decent chance that some reviewer will seek attention (and clicks) by writing a bad review. If that sort of thing is written before preorder sales and manages to generate enough negative buzz, it could dampen those sales, as some people decide to 'wait and see.' Then, even if the negative review is based entirely on false or distorted information or just plain made up criticisms, the next big news after that is about how pre-order numbers are disappointing. The result is a perfectly good product fighting an uphill battle on release. Heck, there are people who have already posted plenty of negative information about the HomePod on sites like this one, having never seen or heard the thing. Some appeared out of nowhere just to do that, which is at least potentially the dirty work of competitors.
So by tightly controlling access to the device until well after pre-sales begin, Apple can limit the potential damage of an attention seeker or of intentional sabotage. With that delay, even if someone puts out that misleading review and it gets some buzz, Apple follows it with a report of robust pre-order sales, and next, all those pre-orders start arriving and the customers themselves generate buzz about how much they like the thing. Mind you, this strategy wouldn't help if Apple were to actually produce a real turnip, but if the product is a good one, this way limits their exposure to negative opportunism, and primes the pump for positive buzz.
Would we be saying the same thing if it was someone else not named Apple? You might be right as to why Apple is cutting back on early reviews but I think if Apple was really confident in what they were shipping they wouldn’t be worried about reviews. And besides they can still control who gets review units. So if they know a certain outlet is just about clicks then don’t give them a review unit.
Of course it matters that it’s a company named Apple. Apple has the success level now where presale reviews offer less value, and Apple is the ultimate clickbait magnet. Any and every issue is magnified out of proportion, so presale reviews are as likely to do harm than good. If you run a business, why take on that risk?
Your position demonstrates time and again that you cannot imagine things from the point of view of a business or person responsible for a product. I’ve built and launched products and this is definitely stuff they have to think about. Risk vs reward.
Meh. Prior to last year no one was arguing that Apple should stop providing review units prior to products going on sale. My guess is the LTE bug that went out with the Watch review units had Apple rethinking their review strategy. But the issue there wasn’t the reviews it was that they allowed review units to go out with a major bug.
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
I wouldn't sweat it. Apple took a similar approach with the iPhone X, letting some websites and YouTubers get controlled hands-on time with representatives watching over their shoulder. The product doesn't launch for two weeks, they are probably just spacing out their media strategy to remain in the news cycle.
Neil, I didn't pay attention the the X review timing but you're saying they didn't supply review units to anyone before the pre-orders began? Now that I've gone back to look the first REAL in-depth X reviews didn't happen until a couple days after pre-orders began. So in-depth reviews of the Home Pod should probably start hitting the main sites next week. Thanks!
Yes, reviews of the iPhone X (and 8) didn't hit until after preorders began. That's normal practice for Apple. For example, iPhone 8 preorders began Sept. 15, but review embargo did not lift until the next week, on Sept. 19.
Also worth noting that the iPhone 8 officially launched on Sept. 22, just 7 days after preorders began. And the reviews arrived three days before launch. With HomePod, there is a two-week window. So we may not see review embargoes lift until Feb. 6-7-ish.
(I haven't been asked to sign an embargo, so I'm not withholding any inside info, just speculating.)
If you think about it, this is probably a good strategy for Apple. As seen on this very thread, initial sales for a pre-order are already built in. Apple has a good enough track record that a lot of people will buy the thing sight-unseen. Out in review world, even if a product is flawless, there is a decent chance that some reviewer will seek attention (and clicks) by writing a bad review. If that sort of thing is written before preorder sales and manages to generate enough negative buzz, it could dampen those sales, as some people decide to 'wait and see.' Then, even if the negative review is based entirely on false or distorted information or just plain made up criticisms, the next big news after that is about how pre-order numbers are disappointing. The result is a perfectly good product fighting an uphill battle on release. Heck, there are people who have already posted plenty of negative information about the HomePod on sites like this one, having never seen or heard the thing. Some appeared out of nowhere just to do that, which is at least potentially the dirty work of competitors.
So by tightly controlling access to the device until well after pre-sales begin, Apple can limit the potential damage of an attention seeker or of intentional sabotage. With that delay, even if someone puts out that misleading review and it gets some buzz, Apple follows it with a report of robust pre-order sales, and next, all those pre-orders start arriving and the customers themselves generate buzz about how much they like the thing. Mind you, this strategy wouldn't help if Apple were to actually produce a real turnip, but if the product is a good one, this way limits their exposure to negative opportunism, and primes the pump for positive buzz.
Agree with you, but also consider that sometimes reviews help the product. See: Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular and the Wi-Fi connectivity bug. Had Apple provided review units earlier (even if the embargo remained the same), they could have presumably had more time to find out about and fix what was, for a very short while, a legit show-stopping bug for LTE users. You can bet your bottom dollar that Apple would have liked to have a day-one patch to fix that bug for faithful fans who preordered before reviews went live.
In the end, the Wi-Fi bug was a minor blip on the radar. Still shouldn't have happened, though.
Actually Gruber wrote about the opposite of your theory being true — that what was in fact a minor bug got blown into something much worse than it was IRL, harming sales, and that those reviews likely contributed to Apple’s decision on the next launch (X). Joanna Stern trolled Apple so much in her review that she dinged it for not having “all day” battery life and requiring recharging after leaving her phone at home and trying to use the Watch as her primary comms device, despite it clearly not being designed for that use case. Reviewers like her aren’t reviewing what the product is designed to do and instead or reviewing what they want or wished it to do, and that didn’t benefit Apple, arguably harmed. So it’s no surprise they’re backing off giving media early content for clicks now.
Except they're not "backing off giving media early content clicks." There will be review units provided prior to launch, just as there always have been. And review embargoes will lift 2-3 days before the product finds its way to consumers, just as the company has always done. You're right, it's no surprise, because nothing has changed.
I was making the argument that Apple should provide review units to the media more than a week before product launch, whenever possible, because it could help them squash bugs by the time it launches to the public. But then again, I work for the media, and would like to have more time to fairly test a product before reviewing it, so my perspective is skewed.
As for your suggestion that something changed in a significant way with the iPhone X launch? The handset became available Nov. 3. Our review was published Nov. 1.
I’m pretty sure I remember reading iPhone X reviewers saying they wish they were given more time with the product. I wish Apple would have done that. It would have made the reviews better. I think all reviews are better when reviewers have more time with the product and time outside of a controlled environment.
The odd ordering time in the US, is seems, was because it was also released in the UK and Australia at the same time. Apple Australia was showing the preorder date as 1.27 (as opposed to 1.26 in the US) which meant that at 12:01am in Australia central time I was able to order one. This equates to 8:30am Eastern in the US.
All The A8 chip needs to do is manage sound manipulation, communications, a very basic OS aaand SIRI. So it should be fine.
I guess the only possible question is future OS and SIRI upgrades for the HomePod. They are quite likely, desirable in fact. Will they be significantly more demanding to the extent a more powerful SOC is needed? Probably not, but I get the original commenter’s concern.
Indeed, if you consider all the things that the processor in an iPhone has to manage, often simultaneously, that won’t be required of a HomePod, that leaves a lot of room for some extensive acoustical tap dancing, probably with a lot left over for expanded future activities. The HomePod costs less than an iPhone and with no battery to slowly degrade, likely has a much longer anticipated lifetime than an iPhone. It is very unlikely that Apple selected a processor that will be anywhere near maxed out anytime soon. Stuffing an A11 in it just because would be an exercise in pointlessly adding expense. Besides which, Apple has never been about wedging hardware into a device just for the purpose of having an impressive spec sheet. Why would they start doing that now?
I’m pretty sure I remember reading iPhone X reviewers saying they wish they were given more time with the product. I wish Apple would have done that. It would have made the reviews better. I think all reviews are better when reviewers have more time with the product and time outside of a controlled environment.
The positive side of the "controlled environment" is that they're listening to both the HomePod and the competitors within that same environment.
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
I wouldn't sweat it. Apple took a similar approach with the iPhone X, letting some websites and YouTubers get controlled hands-on time with representatives watching over their shoulder. The product doesn't launch for two weeks, they are probably just spacing out their media strategy to remain in the news cycle.
Neil, I didn't pay attention the the X review timing but you're saying they didn't supply review units to anyone before the pre-orders began? Now that I've gone back to look the first REAL in-depth X reviews didn't happen until a couple days after pre-orders began. So in-depth reviews of the Home Pod should probably start hitting the main sites next week. Thanks!
Yes, reviews of the iPhone X (and 8) didn't hit until after preorders began. That's normal practice for Apple. For example, iPhone 8 preorders began Sept. 15, but review embargo did not lift until the next week, on Sept. 19.
Also worth noting that the iPhone 8 officially launched on Sept. 22, just 7 days after preorders began. And the reviews arrived three days before launch. With HomePod, there is a two-week window. So we may not see review embargoes lift until Feb. 6-7-ish.
(I haven't been asked to sign an embargo, so I'm not withholding any inside info, just speculating.)
If you think about it, this is probably a good strategy for Apple. As seen on this very thread, initial sales for a pre-order are already built in. Apple has a good enough track record that a lot of people will buy the thing sight-unseen. Out in review world, even if a product is flawless, there is a decent chance that some reviewer will seek attention (and clicks) by writing a bad review. If that sort of thing is written before preorder sales and manages to generate enough negative buzz, it could dampen those sales, as some people decide to 'wait and see.' Then, even if the negative review is based entirely on false or distorted information or just plain made up criticisms, the next big news after that is about how pre-order numbers are disappointing. The result is a perfectly good product fighting an uphill battle on release. Heck, there are people who have already posted plenty of negative information about the HomePod on sites like this one, having never seen or heard the thing. Some appeared out of nowhere just to do that, which is at least potentially the dirty work of competitors.
So by tightly controlling access to the device until well after pre-sales begin, Apple can limit the potential damage of an attention seeker or of intentional sabotage. With that delay, even if someone puts out that misleading review and it gets some buzz, Apple follows it with a report of robust pre-order sales, and next, all those pre-orders start arriving and the customers themselves generate buzz about how much they like the thing. Mind you, this strategy wouldn't help if Apple were to actually produce a real turnip, but if the product is a good one, this way limits their exposure to negative opportunism, and primes the pump for positive buzz.
Agree with you, but also consider that sometimes reviews help the product. See: Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular and the Wi-Fi connectivity bug. Had Apple provided review units earlier (even if the embargo remained the same), they could have presumably had more time to find out about and fix what was, for a very short while, a legit show-stopping bug for LTE users. You can bet your bottom dollar that Apple would have liked to have a day-one patch to fix that bug for faithful fans who preordered before reviews went live.
In the end, the Wi-Fi bug was a minor blip on the radar. Still shouldn't have happened, though.
Actually Gruber wrote about the opposite of your theory being true — that what was in fact a minor bug got blown into something much worse than it was IRL, harming sales, and that those reviews likely contributed to Apple’s decision on the next launch (X). Joanna Stern trolled Apple so much in her review that she dinged it for not having “all day” battery life and requiring recharging after leaving her phone at home and trying to use the Watch as her primary comms device, despite it clearly not being designed for that use case. Reviewers like her aren’t reviewing what the product is designed to do and instead or reviewing what they want or wished it to do, and that didn’t benefit Apple, arguably harmed. So it’s no surprise they’re backing off giving media early content for clicks now.
Except they're not "backing off giving media early content clicks." There will be review units provided prior to launch, just as there always have been. And review embargoes will lift 2-3 days before the product finds its way to consumers, just as the company has always done. You're right, it's no surprise, because nothing has changed.
I was making the argument that Apple should provide review units to the media more than a week before product launch, whenever possible, because it could help them squash bugs by the time it launches to the public. But then again, I work for the media, and would like to have more time to fairly test a product before reviewing it, so my perspective is skewed.
As for your suggestion that something changed in a significant way with the iPhone X launch? The handset became available Nov. 3. Our review was published Nov. 1.
I’m pretty sure I remember reading iPhone X reviewers saying they wish they were given more time with the product. I wish Apple would have done that. It would have made the reviews better. I think all reviews are better when reviewers have more time with the product and time outside of a controlled environment.
Reviewers should almost always want more time with a product before publishing their review. Not only for testing, but for subsequent updates as well.
Case in point: When the DJI Spark launched last year, a bunch of reviews -- published before the product launched -- criticized it for lacking hand gesture tracking by default (i.e., throw it in the air and use gestures to control without using your phone to change modes). The reviews were instantly outdated when the Spark shipped -- it had a day one patch to add that feature. A bunch of tech journalists complaining about something that no consumer would encounter. Whoops.
Of course, it raises the question of when to publish. For example, we didn't publish our iPhone X review when the embargo lifted, because our reviewer felt like he hadn't had enough time with the device. Other publications did run reviews. I don't want to speculate as to why, but I can tell you that there is immense pressure in the publishing world to be first, as you can imagine.
And it's not like you can responsibly hang onto a product for a great deal of time before reviewing it. watchOS has dramatically improved since the Apple Watch first launched, and the first-generation hardware is now a vastly different product because of those changes. But obviously no one was going to wait for a then-mythical watchOS 2 to review the first Apple Watch.
If I were king, I'd say give a reviewer at least two weeks with the product, and embargo the reviews until the day the product launches, or at least the day before. Make sure the reviewers have the exact same device, software and experience that a buyer will have on day one. The embargo timing is basically what Apple does (2-3 days before, and I can't recall a day-one patch anytime recently), but how early they provide the product does vary. I think the iPhone X was under a tight production timeline and that was the chief reason it was a shorter window for a lot of publications (AI included).
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
It does seem like you're being a bit cynical. To me it makes perfect sense for Apple to lift the embargoes on reviews a few days before the actual product launch. That gives people in the know and early adopters a chance to get in before the swarm, and also creates a situation where as buzz is being generated, the product will actually be in the stores for people to check out.
As for the speaker vs AI issue, it seems clear that, just based on the design, HomePod is going to be heads and shoulders above any of the competition as a speaker. However, if Siri is pissing you off, you're going to want to throw that amazing speaker through the window.
As an Apple-only consumer, Siri has been endlessly frustrating for me. I hope that changes soon. In the meantime, maybe I should get some epoxy, just in case, to keep my HomePod from from flying out my window after it arrives on 2/9.
One of the better initial reviews is posted on Techcrunch. First one I'd seen on one of the more high-profile tech sites and includes more detail than a couple of the lesser-known bloggers who got some time with it reported
One of the better initial reviews is posted on Techcrunch. First one I'd seen on one of the more high-profile tech sites and includes more detail than a couple of the lesser-known bloggers who got some time with it reported
That review looked like it was cobbled together by comparing spec sheets against Amazon and Google products. I didn’t even get the impression the reviewer had actually listened to it. The piece seemed to be an excuse to mention that Amazon and Google already have similar technology in their… Ah, I see.
On verbal command, without any extra configuration nor the need for an Amazon Prime subscription, a $35 Echo Dot can stream virtually any internet radio station. That's my principal use for Echoes, with two of them used as inputs to Sonos Play 5 speakers. Until Apple adds flexible internet radio streaming to the HomePod with Siri support, I can't justify cluttering my countertops and shelves with their devices, too. I don't see Apple doing that, though, because Apple cares less about giving consumers what they want and more that free internet radio streaming competes with Apple Music subscriptions (to which I subscribe but use little and may discontinue since HomePod is so limited). [Vague reference to Apple's echo chamber--pun intended--dropped.] One might even argue that Apple's subscription-based internet streaming is an affront to net neutrality: I already pay for broadband internet, so why do I need to pay Apple a fee to stream a puny number of internet radio stations that they control?
Ordered mine with February 9th delivery but pissed that two days earlier, the Apple online chat gal assured me preorders would begin 3:01am EST.
What are you pissed about? Isn't that when pre-orders start? Aren't you getting it on the first day?
Preorders started at about 8:30 a.m. Eastern. I woke up at 3 in an attempt to preorder as well, but had no luck. Then I went back to bed. Not a big deal.
Worth noting that orders are still advertised to deliver on launch day as of Friday afternoon. Either Apple has made plenty of HomePods to meet demand, or demand is less than expected (doomed).
What I learned is the 3am EST pre-order timeframe for new Apple devices is only valid when the "We'll be back soon" (or some similar message) appears in advance.
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
It does seem like you're being a bit cynical. To me it makes perfect sense for Apple to lift the embargoes on reviews a few days before the actual product launch. That gives people in the know and early adopters a chance to get in before the swarm, and also creates a situation where as buzz is being generated, the product will actually be in the stores for people to check out.
As for the speaker vs AI issue, it seems clear that, just based on the design, HomePod is going to be heads and shoulders above any of the competition as a speaker. However, if Siri is pissing you off, you're going to want to throw that amazing speaker through the window.
As an Apple-only consumer, Siri has been endlessly frustrating for me. I hope that changes soon. In the meantime, maybe I should get some epoxy, just in case, to keep my HomePod from from flying out my window after it arrives on 2/9.
I admit I am being cynical. I think that’s partially because I’m still tying to understand why this product exists. What problem is it solving? Now if when WWDC comes around Apple has major SiriKit updates and HomePod gets dramatically better on the smart OS side then I’ll eat my words. But if it remains just a high quality speaker good for Apple Music subs then Apple is not skating to where the puck will be. This iMore article gets it.
I admit I am being cynical. I think that’s partially because I’m still tying to understand why this product exists. What problem is it solving?
Better control of the audio by constantly adapting to the environment the equipment is being used within, which is not only important for music reproduction but also the voice command system itself.
One of the better initial reviews is posted on Techcrunch. First one I'd seen on one of the more high-profile tech sites and includes more detail than a couple of the lesser-known bloggers who got some time with it reported
That review looked like it was cobbled together by comparing spec sheets against Amazon and Google products. I didn’t even get the impression the reviewer had actually listened to it. The piece seemed to be an excuse to mention that Amazon and Google already have similar technology in their… Ah, I see.
No one has truly listened to it yet, presumably being limited to an hour spent with Apple reps and the Homepod, in a smallish square room with a chair or two and speakers set up on a table and some unmentioned distance from a wall. Techcrunch used that time to ask more detailed questions about Siri integration and how the HomePod will work in practice. Yes a couple of links offered earlier in this thread had little known fan-bloggers saying "it sounds great!" Yeah that's very very helpful, great insight
Next week I imagine there will be real time spent with the Homepod by a few publications with better resources and more time with it who can offer better opinions on the sound quality. Heck everyone already knows it will sound good. You need reaffirmation of that? I don't.
Discovering how phone calls can be done on the Homepod, the free three-month trial of Apple Music that comes with it, podcasts and the default, whether muting is via software or a physical switch.... Those are things that our readers may not have known at all, and after the fact I came across another very good intro-review done over at iMore by a not-an-audiophile (which is a good thing IMO) offering great little-known detail too, especially in the section "where HomePod struggles". Those points will have received little mention here obviously but may well be important to those waffling on the purchase, knowing music will be great but waiting for more info on the rest of the experience.
I doubt anyone here is worried whether it will sound good. Is that even a question?
[...] I doubt anyone here is worried whether it will sound good. Is that even a question?
Yes, for me it is.
First, what "sounds good" and what doesn't varies from person to person. Lots of people told me the Pill+ sounds great, but I don't care for it. That suggests that what other people consider good sound may not satisfy me. That's not a criticism of the product -- obviously if most people think it sounds good the issue is me being an "outlier," not a shortcoming in the device -- but it means that I shouldn't make assumptions about sound quality based on the opinions of others. Since our perceptions of what a device "should" sound like vary with application (we may have lower expectations of a little speaker on the nightstand than we would of something in our living room, or we can tolerate poorer sound if it offers some other benefit such as convenience or lower price), it's prudent for each individual to make their own assessment of the sound quality/value proposition in their own setting.
Which brings me to the second point. What we hear from a speaker is influenced by its surroundings. Apple has reportedly tried to address this issue with psychoacoustic tricks, and that gives me pause. It's possible that it may overcome many of the common issues associated with how speaker placement affects what we hear, but it's just as likely, perhaps even MORE likely, that it will introduce peculiar artifacts that actually interfere with my enjoyment. Things like the apparent source of the sound shifting as I move around, or a kind of "swishy" sound when I turn my head. Those are things that a casual listener may not consider a problem (they might even think it sounds kinda cool) but would have others (like me) reaching for the OFF button.
I'm not pre-judging the HomePod -- it would be crazy to draw any conclusions without having heard it. While I have some reservations about the affects of all the modelling stuff I'm not assuming it will be flawed. In fact I'm really hoping to like it a lot. I'm just "once burned" and not assuming that it will sound good to me just because it does to someone else. Or even lots of someone elses.
Oddly the time allowed with the unit was limited (to an hour?) and the reviews are not at all detailed, just describes the Home Pod in broad strokes. IMO unusual for a new Apple release where there's typically a plethora of detailed reviews on sites like Wired & ArsTechnica un-embargoed just before the device goes on sale.
Makes me wonder how confident Apple is in this product considering the rollout.
Here we go again. Yes, Apple is a self-loathsome creature that is ashamed of its pitiful offering so instead of canceling it and slithering away, it's going to just release it anyway but not give out free demos to the scornful media who routinely crucifies the #1 company in the world for the chance at clicks. Cook also hates freedom.
Very concerned. Worried. Bad feeling guys. /s
Sorry it’s a valid question. And I’m not the first to suggest it. Also if I’m going to spend $349 on something it would be nice to know what people who have used it think. And used it for more than an hour and not in a controlled setting.
I never buy something based off reviews. Otherwise, you're just buying what they want you to buy. Go and see it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I couldn't really care less about what someone else thinks of a product I'm thinking about buying.
Comments
Your position demonstrates time and again that you cannot imagine things from the point of view of a business or person responsible for a product. I’ve built and launched products and this is definitely stuff they have to think about. Risk vs reward.
Actually Gruber wrote about the opposite of your theory being true — that what was in fact a minor bug got blown into something much worse than it was IRL, harming sales, and that those reviews likely contributed to Apple’s decision on the next launch (X). Joanna Stern trolled Apple so much in her review that she dinged it for not having “all day” battery life and requiring recharging after leaving her phone at home and trying to use the Watch as her primary comms device, despite it clearly not being designed for that use case. Reviewers like her aren’t reviewing what the product is designed to do and instead or reviewing what they want or wished it to do, and that didn’t benefit Apple, arguably harmed. So it’s no surprise they’re backing off giving media early content for clicks now.
I was making the argument that Apple should provide review units to the media more than a week before product launch, whenever possible, because it could help them squash bugs by the time it launches to the public. But then again, I work for the media, and would like to have more time to fairly test a product before reviewing it, so my perspective is skewed.
As for your suggestion that something changed in a significant way with the iPhone X launch? The handset became available Nov. 3. Our review was published Nov. 1.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/11/02/iphone-x-review-apples-face-id-vision-for-the-future-of-ios
I’m pretty sure I remember reading iPhone X reviewers saying they wish they were given more time with the product. I wish Apple would have done that. It would have made the reviews better. I think all reviews are better when reviewers have more time with the product and time outside of a controlled environment.
Case in point: When the DJI Spark launched last year, a bunch of reviews -- published before the product launched -- criticized it for lacking hand gesture tracking by default (i.e., throw it in the air and use gestures to control without using your phone to change modes). The reviews were instantly outdated when the Spark shipped -- it had a day one patch to add that feature. A bunch of tech journalists complaining about something that no consumer would encounter. Whoops.
And it's not like you can responsibly hang onto a product for a great deal of time before reviewing it. watchOS has dramatically improved since the Apple Watch first launched, and the first-generation hardware is now a vastly different product because of those changes. But obviously no one was going to wait for a then-mythical watchOS 2 to review the first Apple Watch.
If I were king, I'd say give a reviewer at least two weeks with the product, and embargo the reviews until the day the product launches, or at least the day before. Make sure the reviewers have the exact same device, software and experience that a buyer will have on day one. The embargo timing is basically what Apple does (2-3 days before, and I can't recall a day-one patch anytime recently), but how early they provide the product does vary. I think the iPhone X was under a tight production timeline and that was the chief reason it was a shorter window for a lot of publications (AI included).
As for the speaker vs AI issue, it seems clear that, just based on the design, HomePod is going to be heads and shoulders above any of the competition as a speaker. However, if Siri is pissing you off, you're going to want to throw that amazing speaker through the window.
As an Apple-only consumer, Siri has been endlessly frustrating for me. I hope that changes soon. In the meantime, maybe I should get some epoxy, just in case, to keep my HomePod from from flying out my window after it arrives on 2/9.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/26/up-close-with-apples-homepod/
“I can’t justify cluttering my countertops.”
🤣
https://www.imore.com/siri-needs-become-platform
Next week I imagine there will be real time spent with the Homepod by a few publications with better resources and more time with it who can offer better opinions on the sound quality. Heck everyone already knows it will sound good. You need reaffirmation of that? I don't.
Discovering how phone calls can be done on the Homepod, the free three-month trial of Apple Music that comes with it, podcasts and the default, whether muting is via software or a physical switch.... Those are things that our readers may not have known at all, and after the fact I came across another very good intro-review done over at iMore by a not-an-audiophile (which is a good thing IMO) offering great little-known detail too, especially in the section "where HomePod struggles". Those points will have received little mention here obviously but may well be important to those waffling on the purchase, knowing music will be great but waiting for more info on the rest of the experience.
I doubt anyone here is worried whether it will sound good. Is that even a question?
https://www.imore.com/homepod-vs-amazon-echo-vs-google-home-max-vs-sonos-one-speaker-showdown. ;
First, what "sounds good" and what doesn't varies from person to person. Lots of people told me the Pill+ sounds great, but I don't care for it. That suggests that what other people consider good sound may not satisfy me. That's not a criticism of the product -- obviously if most people think it sounds good the issue is me being an "outlier," not a shortcoming in the device -- but it means that I shouldn't make assumptions about sound quality based on the opinions of others. Since our perceptions of what a device "should" sound like vary with application (we may have lower expectations of a little speaker on the nightstand than we would of something in our living room, or we can tolerate poorer sound if it offers some other benefit such as convenience or lower price), it's prudent for each individual to make their own assessment of the sound quality/value proposition in their own setting.
Which brings me to the second point. What we hear from a speaker is influenced by its surroundings. Apple has reportedly tried to address this issue with psychoacoustic tricks, and that gives me pause. It's possible that it may overcome many of the common issues associated with how speaker placement affects what we hear, but it's just as likely, perhaps even MORE likely, that it will introduce peculiar artifacts that actually interfere with my enjoyment. Things like the apparent source of the sound shifting as I move around, or a kind of "swishy" sound when I turn my head. Those are things that a casual listener may not consider a problem (they might even think it sounds kinda cool) but would have others (like me) reaching for the OFF button.
I'm not pre-judging the HomePod -- it would be crazy to draw any conclusions without having heard it. While I have some reservations about the affects of all the modelling stuff I'm not assuming it will be flawed. In fact I'm really hoping to like it a lot. I'm just "once burned" and not assuming that it will sound good to me just because it does to someone else. Or even lots of someone elses.