So if I'm understanding this correctly, using Siri on HomePod will only play music if you have an Apple Music subscription?
The app will stream content from your Apple Music library (which is in the cloud), but the app doesn't support any other music services. If you want to stream anything else (Spotify), you can use another device (iPad, iPhone, Mac, not sure about Android and Windows with BT support) and stream it to the speaker via AirPlay 2, which will arrive this fall in iOS 11. Needless to say, this is NOT going to be supported by speaker Siri.
wouldn't it have been great if this had AppleTV and HomePod in the same form factor?
Or or better yet, wifi, HomePod and AppleTV in this form factor....
No, it wouldn't. I imagine the shape and size of the unit allowed them to stuff in speakers, microphones, and their new OS derivative, BloodyHellThatsLoudOS. The same form factor might not fit under the TV, and would look a bit odd.
From what i've seen, I'm impressed with Apple's direction with this. They decided to focus on one thing and engineer the hell out of it. I think by positioning this as a high end speaker first, they've acknowledged a few shortcomings with Siri, and have learned from Google Home. It's becoming clear the smart speaker market isn't going to be about super conversational A.I. at this point, and that's one reason why Google missed the mark and won't be dominating this market for awhile.
However, I don't see how Apple is going to be competing with Amazon with the price as it is. Echo Dots are $50 and can bluetooth connect or connect via wire to existing speakers, and I own the normal Echo and think it sounds plenty great for my large open kitchen area. I'm not looking for HiFi epic woofers and tweeters when playing Sesame Street's "Rubber Ducky" while giving my baby a bath.
But I will once again say that Apple didn't just follow the pack with it, and that should be commended.
Yes, this is a very good strategy by Apple. When everyone heard Apple is making Voice Assistant device their mind immediately jump into comparison with Amazon Echo. Then Apple said, nope, it's a music foremost. And what a high quality speaker it is if the early reviewers were correct (with its array of seven tweeters and subwoofer, amplifier, auto bass correction, audio beam forming and studio level processing). Yet it is not only a speaker like Sonos (which is also a high end speaker) but also include many capabilities like voice assistant (with its six low-frequency calibration microphones and far-field Siri) and spatial awareness (with its room sensing). It's like a combination of Echo and Sonos plus more in one product. Considering all of those, I think the price is very decent!
Many people who bought Echo because of its low price often do not think they need high quality speakers like Sonos. And that is fine. Apple won't win over the market in one night but I see a good thing in the future of HomePod as a pure premiere home-hub. Unlike Amazon who is interested in what you are purchasing or Google who want to knows all your habits to sell more ads, Apple is genuinely providing a smart high quality home speaker - and that is only a start.
TomPMRI said:
Any information yet on whether or not the HomePod can be used with an iTunes Match subscription instead of having to subscribe to Apple Music? If an Apple Music subscription is a must, this will be a deal killer for me.
... I assume it will play Apple Music directly from within the HomePad and whatever is on your devices (iTunes) via AirPlay ...
In a report last Friday, just before WWDC, Merrill Lynch analyst quietly predicted Apple Watch to be company’s fastest growing segment: from $4.7 billion in fiscal 2016, $6.3B in F2017E, $10.7B in 2018E and nearly $15B after that. In units, Watch predicted to jump from 10.5 million in fiscal 2016 to 33 million in F 2019.
By fiscal 2019, the $14.9B estimated watch sales would put it closing in on fourth place in Apple’s lineup (nearly equal declining/plateauing iPad sales of $16.1B). AppleWatch still well behind Mac $25.1 B, Services $39.2B, and iPhone $204B. [From page 8, 02JUN2017, report by Merrill Lynch analyst Wamsi Mohan. BAML is more bullish on Apple than Bloomberg consensus with $180 target price, 16x Calendar 2018E GAAP eps of $11.49.]
This HomePod will send Wall Street analysts scrambling. Could boost Services too. And wonder if bring new people into ecosystem?
And Apple shares were down at the end of trading on Wall St. Scrambling? To sell perhaps?
This is the Trojan horse. It looks like an innocent speaker, but it will get so much functionality that it becomes the premiere home-hub.
I think Apple was very wise to position it as a speaker that also answers queries. I'm sure a lot of people can see the potential.
And the Stereo separation is? Er? I guess you will need two to get stereo then. Kerching... One speaker setup might be on for the so called music that Apple Music puts out but many other genres do sound a lot better with decent stereo (or quad) separation. I guess that Apple have a lot more explaining to do here.
"An out-of-the-box Sonos (which is a wider, more conventionally shaped speaker box) and Amazon's Echo (a taller, skinnier cylinder) both reproduced the same songs with less passion."
What does this mean? Does the soundstage feel wider? Are the highs brighter? Are the lows emphasized somehow?
Honestly, I don't know why Apple didn't get into home audio sooner. It's the perfect industry for reality distortion fields, where for decades "audiophiles" have found sound improvements in thicker interconnect cables and new speaker cone colors. It's really amazing how few double-blind studies are done in such a subjective field.
To get me to jump from to this from Sonos, I would need a solution that also supports my existing theater system (akin to Sonos:Connect) and my outdoor speakers (akin to Sonos:ConnectAmp).
Don't mean to beat a dead horse again with this: Where are those mocking the Beats acquisition?
1. This isn't a Beats product. 2. What evidence is there that Beats acqui-hires were responsible for this product?
"Case in point: Beats Electronics, which Apple acquired for $3 billion last year, was working on a Wifi-connected loudspeaker that could be used to play subscription music services straight from the Internet"
Beats Electronics was also working on a Wi-Fi-equipped speaker when it was acquired by Apple in 2014, but Apple decided to kill the projectbefore it was publicly announced.
Not only that, there have been PLENTY of articles written yesterday stating Apple has learned a great deal of what the customer wants when it comes to speakers due to Beats.
"Beats wanted to give consumers the option to place speakers in multiple rooms of their house, and then have them all play the same music synchronously. And like Sonos, Beats was looking to introduce a bigger, more powerful speaker for the living room first, and then follow up with a smaller, more affordable product for the kitchen and bedroom."
"The company was also working on combining Bluetooth with Wifi and NFC to allow for seamless handovers, effectively making it possible to launch music playback as soon as you’d enter the room"
"Beats, however, wasn’t looking to partner with any of these companies, and instead wanted to build its own solution from scratch — which can be hard. Insiders say that the company ran into numerous problems, switching chipset vendors along the line, and postponing the project’s launch date more than once."
It would be cool/useful if: You can simultaneously stream different music/podcasts/etc. to different HomePods in different rooms (e.g., classical music in library, TV in family room); if they have an outdoors capable version (i.e., for for the patio); integrate with HomeKit scenes, for variations among different rooms; etc.; if added integration module for existing high-end speakers like Apple-marketed Phantom speakers or other near-reference audio. ... Good review. Thank you. -- JW
Don't mean to beat a dead horse again with this: Where are those mocking the Beats acquisition?
1. This isn't a Beats product. 2. What evidence is there that Beats acqui-hires were responsible for this product?
"Case in point: Beats Electronics, which Apple acquired for $3 billion last year, was working on a Wifi-connected loudspeaker that could be used to play subscription music services straight from the Internet"
Beats Electronics was also working on a Wi-Fi-equipped speaker when it was acquired by Apple in 2014, but Apple decided to kill the projectbefore it was publicly announced.
Not only that, there have been PLENTY of articles written yesterday stating Apple has learned a great deal of what the customer wants when it comes to speakers due to Beats.
"Beats wanted to give consumers the option to place speakers in multiple rooms of their house, and then have them all play the same music synchronously. And like Sonos, Beats was looking to introduce a bigger, more powerful speaker for the living room first, and then follow up with a smaller, more affordable product for the kitchen and bedroom."
"The company was also working on combining Bluetooth with Wifi and NFC to allow for seamless handovers, effectively making it possible to launch music playback as soon as you’d enter the room"
"Beats, however, wasn’t looking to partner with any of these companies, and instead wanted to build its own solution from scratch — which can be hard. Insiders say that the company ran into numerous problems, switching chipset vendors along the line, and postponing the project’s launch date more than once."
If that's the case why isn't this a Beats branded speaker? I'm extremely doubtful we have this product because of the Beats acquisition.
Don't mean to beat a dead horse again with this: Where are those mocking the Beats acquisition?
1. This isn't a Beats product. 2. What evidence is there that Beats acqui-hires were responsible for this product?
"Case in point: Beats Electronics, which Apple acquired for $3 billion last year, was working on a Wifi-connected loudspeaker that could be used to play subscription music services straight from the Internet"
Beats Electronics was also working on a Wi-Fi-equipped speaker when it was acquired by Apple in 2014, but Apple decided to kill the projectbefore it was publicly announced.
Not only that, there have been PLENTY of articles written yesterday stating Apple has learned a great deal of what the customer wants when it comes to speakers due to Beats.
"Beats wanted to give consumers the option to place speakers in multiple rooms of their house, and then have them all play the same music synchronously. And like Sonos, Beats was looking to introduce a bigger, more powerful speaker for the living room first, and then follow up with a smaller, more affordable product for the kitchen and bedroom."
"The company was also working on combining Bluetooth with Wifi and NFC to allow for seamless handovers, effectively making it possible to launch music playback as soon as you’d enter the room"
"Beats, however, wasn’t looking to partner with any of these companies, and instead wanted to build its own solution from scratch — which can be hard. Insiders say that the company ran into numerous problems, switching chipset vendors along the line, and postponing the project’s launch date more than once."
If that's the case why isn't this a Beats branded speaker? I'm extremely doubtful we have this product because of the Beats acquisition.
I think that @NY1822 sounds far more plausible than you do on this one. Moreover, it has been standard practice for Apple to do exactly this: acquire a small company, enhance its capabilities, rebrand as an Apple product, and hit it out of the park (e.g., iTunes, iPod).
This is the Trojan horse. It looks like an innocent speaker, but it will get so much functionality that it becomes the premiere home-hub.
I think Apple was very wise to position it as a speaker that also answers queries. I'm sure a lot of people can see the potential.
And the Stereo separation is? Er? I guess you will need two to get stereo then. Kerching... One speaker setup might be on for the so called music that Apple Music puts out but many other genres do sound a lot better with decent stereo (or quad) separation. I guess that Apple have a lot more explaining to do here.
not really, you're just over thinking it. normal people don't mind a good sounding shelf speaker and aren't going to sweat all that. we don't have or care about dedicated "listening rooms" the way audio geeks like yourself do.
Don't mean to beat a dead horse again with this: Where are those mocking the Beats acquisition?
1. This isn't a Beats product. 2. What evidence is there that Beats acqui-hires were responsible for this product?
"Case in point: Beats Electronics, which Apple acquired for $3 billion last year, was working on a Wifi-connected loudspeaker that could be used to play subscription music services straight from the Internet"
Beats Electronics was also working on a Wi-Fi-equipped speaker when it was acquired by Apple in 2014, but Apple decided to kill the projectbefore it was publicly announced.
Not only that, there have been PLENTY of articles written yesterday stating Apple has learned a great deal of what the customer wants when it comes to speakers due to Beats.
"Beats wanted to give consumers the option to place speakers in multiple rooms of their house, and then have them all play the same music synchronously. And like Sonos, Beats was looking to introduce a bigger, more powerful speaker for the living room first, and then follow up with a smaller, more affordable product for the kitchen and bedroom."
"The company was also working on combining Bluetooth with Wifi and NFC to allow for seamless handovers, effectively making it possible to launch music playback as soon as you’d enter the room"
"Beats, however, wasn’t looking to partner with any of these companies, and instead wanted to build its own solution from scratch — which can be hard. Insiders say that the company ran into numerous problems, switching chipset vendors along the line, and postponing the project’s launch date more than once."
If that's the case why isn't this a Beats branded speaker? I'm extremely doubtful we have this product because of the Beats acquisition.
He provided good info that suggests that it is. You have provided....nothing. Just your personal doubt.
Comments
wouldn't it have been great if this had AppleTV and HomePod in the same form factor?
Or or better yet, wifi, HomePod and AppleTV in this form factor....
However, I don't see how Apple is going to be competing with Amazon with the price as it is. Echo Dots are $50 and can bluetooth connect or connect via wire to existing speakers, and I own the normal Echo and think it sounds plenty great for my large open kitchen area. I'm not looking for HiFi epic woofers and tweeters when playing Sesame Street's "Rubber Ducky" while giving my baby a bath.
But I will once again say that Apple didn't just follow the pack with it, and that should be commended.
This is the Trojan horse. It looks like an innocent speaker, but it will get so much functionality that it becomes the premiere home-hub.
I think Apple was very wise to position it as a speaker that also answers queries. I'm sure a lot of people can see the potential.
Many people who bought Echo because of its low price often do not think they need high quality speakers like Sonos. And that is fine. Apple won't win over the market in one night but I see a good thing in the future of HomePod as a pure premiere home-hub. Unlike Amazon who is interested in what you are purchasing or Google who want to knows all your habits to sell more ads, Apple is genuinely providing a smart high quality home speaker - and that is only a start.
One speaker setup might be on for the so called music that Apple Music puts out but many other genres do sound a lot better with decent stereo (or quad) separation.
I guess that Apple have a lot more explaining to do here.
What does this mean? Does the soundstage feel wider? Are the highs brighter? Are the lows emphasized somehow?
Honestly, I don't know why Apple didn't get into home audio sooner. It's the perfect industry for reality distortion fields, where for decades "audiophiles" have found sound improvements in thicker interconnect cables and new speaker cone colors. It's really amazing how few double-blind studies are done in such a subjective field.
To get me to jump from to this from Sonos, I would need a solution that also supports my existing theater system (akin to Sonos:Connect) and my outdoor speakers (akin to Sonos:ConnectAmp).
Beats Electronics was also working on a Wi-Fi-equipped speaker when it was acquired by Apple in 2014, but Apple decided to kill the projectbefore it was publicly announced.
Not only that, there have been PLENTY of articles written yesterday stating Apple has learned a great deal of what the customer wants when it comes to speakers due to Beats.
http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/apple-musics-missing-link-how-beats-electronics-fumbled-its-sonos-killer-exclusive-1201516865/
"Beats wanted to give consumers the option to place speakers in multiple rooms of their house, and then have them all play the same music synchronously. And like Sonos, Beats was looking to introduce a bigger, more powerful speaker for the living room first, and then follow up with a smaller, more affordable product for the kitchen and bedroom."
"The company was also working on combining Bluetooth with Wifi and NFC to allow for seamless handovers, effectively making it possible to launch music playback as soon as you’d enter the room"
"Beats, however, wasn’t looking to partner with any of these companies, and instead wanted to build its own solution from scratch — which can be hard. Insiders say that the company ran into numerous problems, switching chipset vendors along the line, and postponing the project’s launch date more than once."