Analyst predicts new Apple Pencil, 'low-end' $200 HomePod this fall

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    But that’s all irrelevant. Goldenclaw claimed anyone can read back your texts and this concerned him. Chasm was correct that this was false, as that feature can be disabled. Neither he or Zulu have to go into a deeper hypothetical about what others are doing or apple may be doing. The claim was false. 
    edited February 10
  • Reply 42 of 59

    AppleZulu said:

    [...] So in the end, this follows a very well-worn theme at this point. Other manufacturers get to market with something first, but with marginal quality, and dismal security. Apple arrives later, but with better and more secure implementation. Then some people reliably go on about how the others’ poor implementation is somehow better. Not for me, thanks.
    Opening certain network ports exposes some risk, yet Apple lets ME decide whether the benefits of the service using that port outweigh the risk. Airbags around the front passenger seat of a vehicle are a benefit to adults but a threat to children, so people who aren't putting kids in that seat can use them but those who do can turn them off.

    The argument that security requires eliminating certain features altogether ignores the obvious alternative of an on/off switch. The device could be delivered with certain features disabled as the default, but provide means for the user to activate them if desired.
    Yeah and then you wind up with a Samsung that markets “retina detection” but then tells you it’s not secure so use at your own risk. Sorry but that’s not how apple plays. It’s not remotely analogous with open ports in your firewall. 
    Rayz2016
  • Reply 43 of 59
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,041member
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    But that’s all irrelevant. Goldenclaw claimed anyone can read back your texts and this concerned him. Chasm was correct that this was false, as that feature can be disabled. Neither he or Zulu have to go into a deeper hypothetical about what others are doing or apple may be doing. The claim was false. 
    It's correct that the Siri can read back your texts. It's even the default setting. It's disingenuous to then say it's a lie, that Siri can't do this, and then later sneak in a comment about how it can be disabled as an afterthought.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 44 of 59

    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    I appreciate you telling me how I could’ve done a better job responding to your earlier question. I’m sure that’s very helpful.

    The HomePod’s competitors offer voice recognition to differentiate different accounts, but also caution against using voice recognition as a security measure....People who are related often have similar voices without even trying. So if you want security, the only way to have it is to turn the feature off.
    People that are related may have very similar facial features, but I doubt you'd advise iPhone X owners to disable FaceID "just in case". And FWIW my home assistant has yet to mistake someone else's voice for mine or my wife's so it's not anything we are going to worry ourselves about.  If anything it prevents "not-my-voice" from accessing my personal account or the texts, calls or calendar in it. And I don't have to turn anything off to make sure visitors to my home can't access my account. 

    Typically the dismissal of features as being useful on other devices only lasts until Apple offers it, and sometimes exactly as done or nearly so on those "other devices". 
    Call to back that claim up? I’m only aware of Apple implementing much better versions of features, which is why it’s no longer dismissed. See fingerprint authentication, and face recognition, both of which existed in other products, but both vastly improved with iphone’s implementations. 

    Whats the false positive rate on your google voice recognition? Apple published theirs for Face ID, so let’s compare.
    edited February 10 Rayz2016
  • Reply 45 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,464member

    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    I appreciate you telling me how I could’ve done a better job responding to your earlier question. I’m sure that’s very helpful.

    The HomePod’s competitors offer voice recognition to differentiate different accounts, but also caution against using voice recognition as a security measure....People who are related often have similar voices without even trying. So if you want security, the only way to have it is to turn the feature off.
    People that are related may have very similar facial features, but I doubt you'd advise iPhone X owners to disable FaceID "just in case". And FWIW my home assistant has yet to mistake someone else's voice for mine or my wife's so it's not anything we are going to worry ourselves about.  If anything it prevents "not-my-voice" from accessing my personal account or the texts, calls or calendar in it. And I don't have to turn anything off to make sure visitors to my home can't access my account. 

    Typically the dismissal of features as being useful on other devices only lasts until Apple offers it, and sometimes exactly as done or nearly so on those "other devices". 
    Call to back that claim up? I’m only aware of Apple implementing much better versions of features, which is why it’s no longer dismissed. 

    ...HomePod always listening voice recognition?
    edited February 10
  • Reply 46 of 59
    Analyst wrong: more at 11.
  • Reply 47 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,464member

    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    I appreciate you telling me how I could’ve done a better job responding to your earlier question. I’m sure that’s very helpful.

    The HomePod’s competitors offer voice recognition to differentiate different accounts, but also caution against using voice recognition as a security measure....People who are related often have similar voices without even trying. So if you want security, the only way to have it is to turn the feature off.
    People that are related may have very similar facial features, but I doubt you'd advise iPhone X owners to disable FaceID "just in case". And FWIW my home assistant has yet to mistake someone else's voice for mine or my wife's so it's not anything we are going to worry ourselves about.  If anything it prevents "not-my-voice" from accessing my personal account or the texts, calls or calendar in it. And I don't have to turn anything off to make sure visitors to my home can't access my account. 

    Typically the dismissal of features as being useful on other devices only lasts until Apple offers it, and sometimes exactly as done or nearly so on those "other devices". 
    Whats the false positive rate on your google voice recognition? Apple published theirs for Face ID, so let’s compare.

    You've raised a good point. I've gone back and looked at my voice requests and it's not 100% accurate. There's several hundred relatively recent uses and I do see two erroneous voice recognition events where my Google Home registered "Hey Google" only to record a voice snippet that was nonsensical. It only thought it heard "Hey Google". So I can inspect it for accuracy myself. What about you? What do you come up with for mistaken "Hey Siri" events and the subsequent voice recordings sent on to Apple servers when you look at the list of everything your Apple whatever heard?
    edited February 10
  • Reply 48 of 59
    Analyst wrong: more at 11.
    He can't be completely wrong with such with such a wild shotgun blaster. ;-)
  • Reply 49 of 59
    AppleZulu said:

    [...] So in the end, this follows a very well-worn theme at this point. Other manufacturers get to market with something first, but with marginal quality, and dismal security. Apple arrives later, but with better and more secure implementation. Then some people reliably go on about how the others’ poor implementation is somehow better. Not for me, thanks.
    Opening certain network ports exposes some risk, yet Apple lets ME decide whether the benefits of the service using that port outweigh the risk. Airbags around the front passenger seat of a vehicle are a benefit to adults but a threat to children, so people who aren't putting kids in that seat can use them but those who do can turn them off.

    The argument that security requires eliminating certain features altogether ignores the obvious alternative of an on/off switch. The device could be delivered with certain features disabled as the default, but provide means for the user to activate them if desired.
    Regarding the airbag example, to my knowledge the option to turn off an airbag was briefly a thing, but is now automated. If something is detected in the passenger seat but falls below a weight threshhold, the airbag is automatically shut off. Otherwise it’s always on. The automation makes sure the user doesn’t misapply the airbag on/off function by either forgetting to turn it off when a small child is in the front seat (where they should almost never be), or by intentionally or unintentionally leaving it switched off the rest of the time when it should in fact be on. This serves the user well by creating a high probability that the correct passenger airbag on/off configuration is in place, and it serves the manufacturer, by assuring that all that tech and testing of airbags isn’t overridden and defeated by users who are incorrectly sure they know better than all that science and engineering that went into a car’s airbag design. 

    While they probably get complaints from a few people who are upset they can’t switch the airbags off at will, they get far fewer complaints (in the form of lawsuits) when someone faceplants on the dashboard because the manufacturer should have known better than to let users decide when to disable the airbag.

    Likewise, there will be a few people who look for things to criticize about the HomePod and will complain about there being no eq knobs to twiddle, but there will be far fewer complaints (in the form of returns) that would result were customers able to screw with the eq at will, defeating the extensive audio engineering and tech built into the device, and then blaming Apple because it sounds terrible.

    As for network ports, a HomePod is not like a desktop computer. For that matter, neither is an iOS device. Are you able to twiddle with port access on your iPhone? 

    As is so frequently the case, the HomePod-lack-of-user-eq-controls follows the pattern of people complaining about an Apple product not doing a thing that runs directly counter to the designers’ intent, or in many cases not doing a thing that runs directly counter to Apple’s entire business model and ethos. A high percentage of the grumbling on boards like this fall into that category, and it’s frankly fascinating that people don’t even see that pattern repeating over and over, while Apple keeps turning out devices that a lot of other people seem to like just fine.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 50 of 59
    AppleZulu said:
    [...] As is so frequently the case, the HomePod-lack-of-user-eq-controls follows the pattern of people complaining about an Apple product not doing a thing that runs directly counter to the designers’ intent
    Snipping to comment on just this bit, but the rest was interesting and informative.

    I understand what you're saying. I don't disagree in general, but do with respect to EQ on the HomePod in particular. The designer is not ABLE to make the system automatically compensate for questionable mastering decisions, much less variations in personal taste. The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source. If the source is poorly balanced, the result is a perfect rendition of something that sounds bad.

    Again, it's not a big deal, I just don't understand why people want to frame this as a positive or benefit. There's undoubtedly an ideal screen brightness for a Mac, yet Apple lets us adjust it. There's also an optimal volume level for each piece of music, yet we expect to be able to adjust it. Why anyone thinks EQ is somehow different eludes me.
  • Reply 51 of 59
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    I appreciate you telling me how I could’ve done a better job responding to your earlier question. I’m sure that’s very helpful.

    The HomePod’s competitors offer voice recognition to differentiate different accounts, but also caution against using voice recognition as a security measure....People who are related often have similar voices without even trying. So if you want security, the only way to have it is to turn the feature off.
    People that are related may have very similar facial features, but I doubt you'd advise iPhone X owners to disable FaceID "just in case". And FWIW my home assistant has yet to mistake someone else's voice for mine or my wife's so it's not anything we are going to worry ourselves about.  If anything it prevents "not-my-voice" from accessing my personal account or the texts, calls or calendar in it. And I don't have to turn anything off to make sure visitors to my home can't access my account. 

    Typically the dismissal of features as being useful on other devices only lasts until Apple offers it, and sometimes exactly as done or nearly so on those "other devices". 
    Call to back that claim up? I’m only aware of Apple implementing much better versions of features, which is why it’s no longer dismissed. 

    ...HomePod always listening voice recognition?
    Nope. Recall your absurd claim:

    ”Typically the dismissal of features as being useful on other devices only lasts until Apple offers it, and sometimes exactly as done or nearly so on those "other devices".”

    ...since this is typical, you should have no problem listing a bunch of features apple fans flip flopped on when apple copied them in the exact same way, as you claim.
    edited February 12
  • Reply 52 of 59

    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    I appreciate you telling me how I could’ve done a better job responding to your earlier question. I’m sure that’s very helpful.

    The HomePod’s competitors offer voice recognition to differentiate different accounts, but also caution against using voice recognition as a security measure....People who are related often have similar voices without even trying. So if you want security, the only way to have it is to turn the feature off.
    People that are related may have very similar facial features, but I doubt you'd advise iPhone X owners to disable FaceID "just in case". And FWIW my home assistant has yet to mistake someone else's voice for mine or my wife's so it's not anything we are going to worry ourselves about.  If anything it prevents "not-my-voice" from accessing my personal account or the texts, calls or calendar in it. And I don't have to turn anything off to make sure visitors to my home can't access my account. 

    Typically the dismissal of features as being useful on other devices only lasts until Apple offers it, and sometimes exactly as done or nearly so on those "other devices". 
    Whats the false positive rate on your google voice recognition? Apple published theirs for Face ID, so let’s compare.

    You've raised a good point. I've gone back and looked at my voice requests and it's not 100% accurate. There's several hundred relatively recent uses and I do see two erroneous voice recognition events where my Google Home registered "Hey Google" only to record a voice snippet that was nonsensical. It only thought it heard "Hey Google". So I can inspect it for accuracy myself. What about you? What do you come up with for mistaken "Hey Siri" events and the subsequent voice recordings sent on to Apple servers when you look at the list of everything your Apple whatever heard?
    What are you on about? I asked you for the false positive rate on the voice recognition, of differing users obviously as that was the topic. You know, since we were talking about security. Your nonsense about the listening word is completely irrelevant. 

    Try again. What does google say the false acceptance rate is for incorrectly identifying differing users and compromising security? apple puts face id at 1 in a million. 
  • Reply 53 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,464member

    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    AppleZulu said:
    Soli said:
    chasm said:
    I was set to buy a HomePod, but I need to say that as many of the reviews come in I am really hesitant now. Apparently there's no distinction of different people for voice recognition; if linked to your personal accounts then anyone can read back your texts. And if I understand it correctly, AirPlay connections are constantly broken.

    Not to mention the total ecosystem lock-in. I use Apple's iTunes and Music Match for 95% of my stuff but it would be nice to be able to use Spotify, Google Play, etc.

    The sound quality seems like a real achievement however.
    The claim that anyone can read back your texts is false (you control that option).
    How? Any new iMessages (haven't tested SMS since I rarely get them) I have come to my account can be played via text-to-speech on my HomePod by simply saying "Hey, Siri, play my messages." Since there are no voice profiles for different users it's accessible by anyone. This includes the iPhone being in Airplane Mode to simulate being away from the residence. Anyone can also respond to anyone via Siri on the HomePod via my iMessage account.
    In the HomePod setup you can turn that function off. That’s how.
    But you have completely disable the feature to prevent that. That's not what I define "smart" or "intelligent." I think a more accurate statement would've been to say "True, but you can disable that feature (and others) if you're home has people coming though that you don't want to access personal account data." Perhaps even add in something hopeful, like, "I believe it's probable Apple is working on adding multiple accounts and distant voice profiles in the future, just like all the others have done," and to note that "the others only added these features more recently despite having these home-based systems out for a while—even years—against this being day 1 for the HomePod release."
    I appreciate you telling me how I could’ve done a better job responding to your earlier question. I’m sure that’s very helpful.

    The HomePod’s competitors offer voice recognition to differentiate different accounts, but also caution against using voice recognition as a security measure....People who are related often have similar voices without even trying. So if you want security, the only way to have it is to turn the feature off.
    People that are related may have very similar facial features, but I doubt you'd advise iPhone X owners to disable FaceID "just in case". And FWIW my home assistant has yet to mistake someone else's voice for mine or my wife's so it's not anything we are going to worry ourselves about.  If anything it prevents "not-my-voice" from accessing my personal account or the texts, calls or calendar in it. And I don't have to turn anything off to make sure visitors to my home can't access my account. 

    Typically the dismissal of features as being useful on other devices only lasts until Apple offers it, and sometimes exactly as done or nearly so on those "other devices". 
    Whats the false positive rate on your google voice recognition? Apple published theirs for Face ID, so let’s compare.

    You've raised a good point. I've gone back and looked at my voice requests and it's not 100% accurate. There's several hundred relatively recent uses and I do see two erroneous voice recognition events where my Google Home registered "Hey Google" only to record a voice snippet that was nonsensical. It only thought it heard "Hey Google". So I can inspect it for accuracy myself. What about you? What do you come up with for mistaken "Hey Siri" events and the subsequent voice recordings sent on to Apple servers when you look at the list of everything your Apple whatever heard?
    What are you on about? I asked you for the false positive rate on the voice recognition, of differing users obviously as that was the topic. You know, since we were talking about security. Your nonsense about the listening word is completely irrelevant. 

    Try again. What does google say the false acceptance rate is for incorrectly identifying differing users and compromising security? apple puts face id at 1 in a million. 
    How does FaceID apply to smart-speakers? Oh wait, it doesn't. Pretty sure they're voice controlled, so you may as well ask about the security of egg-crates in protecting eggs. It's just as applicable. 

    Anyone using Google Assistant can look at their account and check the false positive rate for themselves. Check and verify. It's actually useful to do so as a matter of fact from a security standpoint, with the added benefit of seeing what Assistant heard compared to what you said when it fails. And yes it does sometimes. 
    edited February 12 Soli
  • Reply 54 of 59
    AppleZulu said:
    [...] As is so frequently the case, the HomePod-lack-of-user-eq-controls follows the pattern of people complaining about an Apple product not doing a thing that runs directly counter to the designers’ intent
    Snipping to comment on just this bit, but the rest was interesting and informative.

    I understand what you're saying. I don't disagree in general, but do with respect to EQ on the HomePod in particular. The designer is not ABLE to make the system automatically compensate for questionable mastering decisions, much less variations in personal taste. The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source. If the source is poorly balanced, the result is a perfect rendition of something that sounds bad.

    Again, it's not a big deal, I just don't understand why people want to frame this as a positive or benefit. There's undoubtedly an ideal screen brightness for a Mac, yet Apple lets us adjust it. There's also an optimal volume level for each piece of music, yet we expect to be able to adjust it. Why anyone thinks EQ is somehow different eludes me.
    This is fascinating. You are making a case for what is surely among the least used purposes for user-controlled audio equalization: correcting deficiencies for individual audio sources. Even for audiophiles with high-end stereos and multi-channel audio systems, testing is done during setup to adjust the system to perform well in a given room, with the specific goal of achieving accurate reproduction of source materials. Every audiophile wants to hear exactly what Bob Ludwig heard in his mastering studio. Once an audiophile system is set up to achieve that goal in the user’s listening space, that’s usually it. Further fiddling to compensate for an oddly mastered track probably doesn’t happen all that often, because that would then require going through the whole process of resetting everything to get things back to the usually desired accurate reproduction of the source material. I sincerely doubt that there are very many audiophiles who get up and continually  readjust their $20,000 systems to compensate for each track they find substandardly mastered.

    With the HomePod, there’s now another article on this site sharing an actual audiophile’s detailed testing that concluded that the HomePod is in fact an audiophile quality speaker that tunes to the listening space and effectively achieves a flat frequency response and thus an accurate reproduction of the source material, with no user fiddling required to get there. 

    Yet here we are, with your criticism saying, “The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source.” This is literally the thing that some people spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to achieve. Now there’s testing that seems to indicate that the HomePod actually accomplishes that goal for a mere $350. Yet, somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that this is a defect, not a feature. Do you see how that’s a bit stunning?

    In the end, the HomePod is a mass-market device that achieves a remarkable audiophile feat. Millions of these things will be sold. For the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of the people who buy them, having the tempting ability to fiddle with the EQ on the HomePod would result in an inferior listening experience, and probably also in a lot of stupid returns, because no matter how much they fiddle with those controls, they can’t get it to sound right. Apple was wise to deliver a device that offers a fantastic auditory experience, while leaving out the means for the user to screw that all up after the fact.
    edited February 12
  • Reply 55 of 59
    AppleZulu said:
    With the HomePod, there’s now another article on this site sharing an actual audiophile’s detailed testing that concluded that the HomePod is in fact an audiophile quality speaker that tunes to the listening space and effectively achieves a flat frequency response and thus an accurate reproduction of the source material, with no user fiddling required to get there. 
    This is a side issue to our discussion, but I found that article confusing. The guy doing the measurements calls the response "flat" but his own graph shows the response from low-mids down to be plus/minus 10dB! That's a lot of deviation -- the peaks are four times as loud as the dips. That's fine for what the HomePod is, a little consumer audio reproduction device (in fact it's pretty good for a device in that general category) but it's not even in the ballpark of the +/-3dB variation that has for decades been the de facto threshold for "high quality" status.

    The range in which these large variations occur implies that they may be the result of room nodes. If that's the case, then Apple's automatic compensation isn't working as well as we'd hoped, and is another argument for allowing users to adjust the spectral balance.

    But all that is beside the point I was trying to make, which was that excluding EQ control on the HomePod is NOT a "benefit" to the user. It is not a feature. It is not a positive. As negatives go it's a pretty minor one, no question, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

    AppleZulu said:
    Yet here we are, with your criticism saying, “The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source.” This is literally the thing that some people spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to achieve. Now there’s testing that seems to indicate that the HomePod actually accomplishes that goal for a mere $350. Yet, somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that this is a defect, not a feature. Do you see how that’s a bit stunning?
    I do not see why it's "stunning" to imagine that someone might have a desire to deviate from someone else's idea of "ideal." My old boss liked mixes that are fulsome in the midrange and slightly lighter on the bottom. I like stuff that's a little more sparse and clearly articulated in the middle and punchier on the bottom. Is one of us right and the other wrong, or is it a matter of personal taste? If the latter, what's wrong with each of us tuning our playback system to provide an experience more in line with our taste than the way it comes out of the box?

    As for hearing exactly what Bob Ludwig intended, you're not anyway so it's a moot point. Even if we classified the HomePod as being in the same category as Dunlevy or PMC et al, or even Genelec or B&W, playing the same source on each of them will sound distinctly different, even to the most casual listener. Which one is "right?"

    On top of that, it has only been relatively recently in the history of recorded music that it has even been possible to master a track without considering the delivery medium. Anything released prior to the 21st century was tweaked to compensate for vinyl or radio (DG and Telarc being possible exceptions), and even now most tracks are adjusted to accommodate the feeble amps and limited frequency response of the typical home entertainment system or personal listening device. This supposed "ideal" that audiophiles struggle to recreate simply doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. So deviating from the balance as delivered is not like painting over a Picasso, it's more like adjusting the lighting in the room to make it look its best.

    Most of us would never bother with EQ. Very few will care whether its available or not. The absence of it is not a reason to dismiss the HomePod, It's just not a FEATURE of the HomePod that it has no EQ. Period.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 56 of 59
    AppleZulu said:
    With the HomePod, there’s now another article on this site sharing an actual audiophile’s detailed testing that concluded that the HomePod is in fact an audiophile quality speaker that tunes to the listening space and effectively achieves a flat frequency response and thus an accurate reproduction of the source material, with no user fiddling required to get there. 
    This is a side issue to our discussion, but I found that article confusing. The guy doing the measurements calls the response "flat" but his own graph shows the response from low-mids down to be plus/minus 10dB! That's a lot of deviation -- the peaks are four times as loud as the dips. That's fine for what the HomePod is, a little consumer audio reproduction device (in fact it's pretty good for a device in that general category) but it's not even in the ballpark of the +/-3dB variation that has for decades been the de facto threshold for "high quality" status.

    The range in which these large variations occur implies that they may be the result of room nodes. If that's the case, then Apple's automatic compensation isn't working as well as we'd hoped, and is another argument for allowing users to adjust the spectral balance.

    But all that is beside the point I was trying to make, which was that excluding EQ control on the HomePod is NOT a "benefit" to the user. It is not a feature. It is not a positive. As negatives go it's a pretty minor one, no question, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

    AppleZulu said:
    Yet here we are, with your criticism saying, “The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source.” This is literally the thing that some people spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to achieve. Now there’s testing that seems to indicate that the HomePod actually accomplishes that goal for a mere $350. Yet, somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that this is a defect, not a feature. Do you see how that’s a bit stunning?
    I do not see why it's "stunning" to imagine that someone might have a desire to deviate from someone else's idea of "ideal." My old boss liked mixes that are fulsome in the midrange and slightly lighter on the bottom. I like stuff that's a little more sparse and clearly articulated in the middle and punchier on the bottom. Is one of us right and the other wrong, or is it a matter of personal taste? If the latter, what's wrong with each of us tuning our playback system to provide an experience more in line with our taste than the way it comes out of the box?

    As for hearing exactly what Bob Ludwig intended, you're not anyway so it's a moot point. Even if we classified the HomePod as being in the same category as Dunlevy or PMC et al, or even Genelec or B&W, playing the same source on each of them will sound distinctly different, even to the most casual listener. Which one is "right?"

    On top of that, it has only been relatively recently in the history of recorded music that it has even been possible to master a track without considering the delivery medium. Anything released prior to the 21st century was tweaked to compensate for vinyl or radio (DG and Telarc being possible exceptions), and even now most tracks are adjusted to accommodate the feeble amps and limited frequency response of the typical home entertainment system or personal listening device. This supposed "ideal" that audiophiles struggle to recreate simply doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. So deviating from the balance as delivered is not like painting over a Picasso, it's more like adjusting the lighting in the room to make it look its best.

    Most of us would never bother with EQ. Very few will care whether its available or not. The absence of it is not a reason to dismiss the HomePod, It's just not a FEATURE of the HomePod that it has no EQ. Period.
    Check the antecedents. The feature is the HomePod’s ability to do a remarkable job accurately reproducing the source material. Automatically. With no user input. That is quite literally the leading feature of the device.  Period.
  • Reply 57 of 59
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    With the HomePod, there’s now another article on this site sharing an actual audiophile’s detailed testing that concluded that the HomePod is in fact an audiophile quality speaker that tunes to the listening space and effectively achieves a flat frequency response and thus an accurate reproduction of the source material, with no user fiddling required to get there. 
    This is a side issue to our discussion, but I found that article confusing. The guy doing the measurements calls the response "flat" but his own graph shows the response from low-mids down to be plus/minus 10dB! That's a lot of deviation -- the peaks are four times as loud as the dips. That's fine for what the HomePod is, a little consumer audio reproduction device (in fact it's pretty good for a device in that general category) but it's not even in the ballpark of the +/-3dB variation that has for decades been the de facto threshold for "high quality" status.

    The range in which these large variations occur implies that they may be the result of room nodes. If that's the case, then Apple's automatic compensation isn't working as well as we'd hoped, and is another argument for allowing users to adjust the spectral balance.

    But all that is beside the point I was trying to make, which was that excluding EQ control on the HomePod is NOT a "benefit" to the user. It is not a feature. It is not a positive. As negatives go it's a pretty minor one, no question, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

    AppleZulu said:
    Yet here we are, with your criticism saying, “The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source.” This is literally the thing that some people spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to achieve. Now there’s testing that seems to indicate that the HomePod actually accomplishes that goal for a mere $350. Yet, somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that this is a defect, not a feature. Do you see how that’s a bit stunning?
    I do not see why it's "stunning" to imagine that someone might have a desire to deviate from someone else's idea of "ideal." My old boss liked mixes that are fulsome in the midrange and slightly lighter on the bottom. I like stuff that's a little more sparse and clearly articulated in the middle and punchier on the bottom. Is one of us right and the other wrong, or is it a matter of personal taste? If the latter, what's wrong with each of us tuning our playback system to provide an experience more in line with our taste than the way it comes out of the box?

    As for hearing exactly what Bob Ludwig intended, you're not anyway so it's a moot point. Even if we classified the HomePod as being in the same category as Dunlevy or PMC et al, or even Genelec or B&W, playing the same source on each of them will sound distinctly different, even to the most casual listener. Which one is "right?"

    On top of that, it has only been relatively recently in the history of recorded music that it has even been possible to master a track without considering the delivery medium. Anything released prior to the 21st century was tweaked to compensate for vinyl or radio (DG and Telarc being possible exceptions), and even now most tracks are adjusted to accommodate the feeble amps and limited frequency response of the typical home entertainment system or personal listening device. This supposed "ideal" that audiophiles struggle to recreate simply doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. So deviating from the balance as delivered is not like painting over a Picasso, it's more like adjusting the lighting in the room to make it look its best.

    Most of us would never bother with EQ. Very few will care whether its available or not. The absence of it is not a reason to dismiss the HomePod, It's just not a FEATURE of the HomePod that it has no EQ. Period.
    Check the antecedents. The feature is the HomePod’s ability to do a remarkable job accurately reproducing the source material. Automatically. With no user input. That is quite literally the leading feature of the device.  Period.
    No, wrong. The HomePod compensates for room acoustics. It does NOT "automatically" fix poorly balanced source material. How could it?

    If the recording being played is muddy and dark, the HomePod will accurately reproduce muddy and dark. It will not thin the low mids or turn up the highs. That's not what it does.
  • Reply 58 of 59
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    With the HomePod, there’s now another article on this site sharing an actual audiophile’s detailed testing that concluded that the HomePod is in fact an audiophile quality speaker that tunes to the listening space and effectively achieves a flat frequency response and thus an accurate reproduction of the source material, with no user fiddling required to get there. 
    This is a side issue to our discussion, but I found that article confusing. The guy doing the measurements calls the response "flat" but his own graph shows the response from low-mids down to be plus/minus 10dB! That's a lot of deviation -- the peaks are four times as loud as the dips. That's fine for what the HomePod is, a little consumer audio reproduction device (in fact it's pretty good for a device in that general category) but it's not even in the ballpark of the +/-3dB variation that has for decades been the de facto threshold for "high quality" status.

    The range in which these large variations occur implies that they may be the result of room nodes. If that's the case, then Apple's automatic compensation isn't working as well as we'd hoped, and is another argument for allowing users to adjust the spectral balance.

    But all that is beside the point I was trying to make, which was that excluding EQ control on the HomePod is NOT a "benefit" to the user. It is not a feature. It is not a positive. As negatives go it's a pretty minor one, no question, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

    AppleZulu said:
    Yet here we are, with your criticism saying, “The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source.” This is literally the thing that some people spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to achieve. Now there’s testing that seems to indicate that the HomePod actually accomplishes that goal for a mere $350. Yet, somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that this is a defect, not a feature. Do you see how that’s a bit stunning?
    I do not see why it's "stunning" to imagine that someone might have a desire to deviate from someone else's idea of "ideal." My old boss liked mixes that are fulsome in the midrange and slightly lighter on the bottom. I like stuff that's a little more sparse and clearly articulated in the middle and punchier on the bottom. Is one of us right and the other wrong, or is it a matter of personal taste? If the latter, what's wrong with each of us tuning our playback system to provide an experience more in line with our taste than the way it comes out of the box?

    As for hearing exactly what Bob Ludwig intended, you're not anyway so it's a moot point. Even if we classified the HomePod as being in the same category as Dunlevy or PMC et al, or even Genelec or B&W, playing the same source on each of them will sound distinctly different, even to the most casual listener. Which one is "right?"

    On top of that, it has only been relatively recently in the history of recorded music that it has even been possible to master a track without considering the delivery medium. Anything released prior to the 21st century was tweaked to compensate for vinyl or radio (DG and Telarc being possible exceptions), and even now most tracks are adjusted to accommodate the feeble amps and limited frequency response of the typical home entertainment system or personal listening device. This supposed "ideal" that audiophiles struggle to recreate simply doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. So deviating from the balance as delivered is not like painting over a Picasso, it's more like adjusting the lighting in the room to make it look its best.

    Most of us would never bother with EQ. Very few will care whether its available or not. The absence of it is not a reason to dismiss the HomePod, It's just not a FEATURE of the HomePod that it has no EQ. Period.
    Check the antecedents. The feature is the HomePod’s ability to do a remarkable job accurately reproducing the source material. Automatically. With no user input. That is quite literally the leading feature of the device.  Period.
    No, wrong. The HomePod compensates for room acoustics. It does NOT "automatically" fix poorly balanced source material. How could it?

    If the recording being played is muddy and dark, the HomePod will accurately reproduce muddy and dark. It will not thin the low mids or turn up the highs. That's not what it does.
    Great googly moogly. Please work on your reading comprehension skills. Seriously. You’re embarrassing yourself. “Accurately reproducing the source material” does not mean “‘automatically’ fix[ing] poorly balanced source material.” How could it? While you’re swinging at some sort of hallucinated straw man over there, I’m way over here.
  • Reply 59 of 59
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    With the HomePod, there’s now another article on this site sharing an actual audiophile’s detailed testing that concluded that the HomePod is in fact an audiophile quality speaker that tunes to the listening space and effectively achieves a flat frequency response and thus an accurate reproduction of the source material, with no user fiddling required to get there. 
    This is a side issue to our discussion, but I found that article confusing. The guy doing the measurements calls the response "flat" but his own graph shows the response from low-mids down to be plus/minus 10dB! That's a lot of deviation -- the peaks are four times as loud as the dips. That's fine for what the HomePod is, a little consumer audio reproduction device (in fact it's pretty good for a device in that general category) but it's not even in the ballpark of the +/-3dB variation that has for decades been the de facto threshold for "high quality" status.

    The range in which these large variations occur implies that they may be the result of room nodes. If that's the case, then Apple's automatic compensation isn't working as well as we'd hoped, and is another argument for allowing users to adjust the spectral balance.

    But all that is beside the point I was trying to make, which was that excluding EQ control on the HomePod is NOT a "benefit" to the user. It is not a feature. It is not a positive. As negatives go it's a pretty minor one, no question, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

    AppleZulu said:
    Yet here we are, with your criticism saying, “The best the designer can hope for is accurate reproduction of the source.” This is literally the thing that some people spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to achieve. Now there’s testing that seems to indicate that the HomePod actually accomplishes that goal for a mere $350. Yet, somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that this is a defect, not a feature. Do you see how that’s a bit stunning?
    I do not see why it's "stunning" to imagine that someone might have a desire to deviate from someone else's idea of "ideal." My old boss liked mixes that are fulsome in the midrange and slightly lighter on the bottom. I like stuff that's a little more sparse and clearly articulated in the middle and punchier on the bottom. Is one of us right and the other wrong, or is it a matter of personal taste? If the latter, what's wrong with each of us tuning our playback system to provide an experience more in line with our taste than the way it comes out of the box?

    As for hearing exactly what Bob Ludwig intended, you're not anyway so it's a moot point. Even if we classified the HomePod as being in the same category as Dunlevy or PMC et al, or even Genelec or B&W, playing the same source on each of them will sound distinctly different, even to the most casual listener. Which one is "right?"

    On top of that, it has only been relatively recently in the history of recorded music that it has even been possible to master a track without considering the delivery medium. Anything released prior to the 21st century was tweaked to compensate for vinyl or radio (DG and Telarc being possible exceptions), and even now most tracks are adjusted to accommodate the feeble amps and limited frequency response of the typical home entertainment system or personal listening device. This supposed "ideal" that audiophiles struggle to recreate simply doesn't exist. It's a fantasy. So deviating from the balance as delivered is not like painting over a Picasso, it's more like adjusting the lighting in the room to make it look its best.

    Most of us would never bother with EQ. Very few will care whether its available or not. The absence of it is not a reason to dismiss the HomePod, It's just not a FEATURE of the HomePod that it has no EQ. Period.
    Check the antecedents. The feature is the HomePod’s ability to do a remarkable job accurately reproducing the source material. Automatically. With no user input. That is quite literally the leading feature of the device.  Period.
    No, wrong. The HomePod compensates for room acoustics. It does NOT "automatically" fix poorly balanced source material. How could it?

    If the recording being played is muddy and dark, the HomePod will accurately reproduce muddy and dark. It will not thin the low mids or turn up the highs. That's not what it does.
    Great googly moogly. Please work on your reading comprehension skills. Seriously. You’re embarrassing yourself. “Accurately reproducing the source material” does not mean “‘automatically’ fix[ing] poorly balanced source material.” How could it? While you’re swinging at some sort of hallucinated straw man over there, I’m way over here.
    I understand what you're saying, but maybe I'm not clearly explaining how/why I disagree.

    You're saying that the absence of EQ on the HomePod is a positive, that it's beneficial to the user. Your argument is that because the HomePod automatically adjusts itself it provides accurate reproduction that does not require equalization.

    My position is that "accurate" is not always "best." A listener may want to alter the spectral balance either to offset adjustments made in mastering or simply to accommodate personal preference.

    Sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote. Since I had already stated the reasons one may wish to adjust the balance, your comment that it isn't necessary because the HomePod adjusts automatically made me think you were suggesting that it automatically adjusts for the conditions I was describing.
Sign In or Register to comment.