In addition to premiering the Galaxy Note 8, Samsung on Wednesday said that it's working on its own smartspeaker, which will face off against products like the Apple HomePod, Amazon Echo, and Google Home.
From my perspective, this is Amazon's territory now. "Alexa" is used a LOT more than Siri - Siri is not dependable. Amazon got this right with keeping the features simple yet deep. I don't see how Samsung's Bixby will be used in a home with iPads and Kindles. This A.I. -inside-speakers competition doesn't feel like a level playing ground, and it's success will be based on loyal consumers.
Although Siri has taken a big hit, it's still used more than its competitors. However, I don't see this continuing for much longer unless Apple pulls its finger out.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
I would hope Sammy is just a bit smarter by now. Apple may be selling a really good-sounding and very solid home speaker/assistant come the end of the year, but the Homepod design to me is more than a bit meh. I just can't past the resemblance to a roll of toilet paper, no insult intended. Yes I know a lot of folks here think it looks amazing. Different strokes.
The design is uninspired and bears many similarities with past 360º speakers. I suppose, just as with phones, there is only so much you can do with the design but my taste leans towards something without the rounded top although I still like the rounded top when using transparent casing.
Why aren't we surprised. Copy, Copy, Copy is all they know. And be sure to introduce the product just before the others do their intro or product updates.
But there is a twist: this time Samsung is copying from Amazon and not from Apple.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
My point is that if you’re an iOS user, you’re not buying a GalaxyPod (what else would these clowns name it?). If you are then you’re a terrible consumer. It’s like buying an Android watch to use with your iPhone...you’re getting a fraction of the functionality without full integration.
We have 2 iPhones and 3 Android phones at home, so what should we do? It is an illusion to assume all members of a family have all Andriod or all iOS devices. A home speaker system is shared by all members of a famliy and should integrate with both eco systems. If not, its appeal will be not be that high.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
My point is that if you’re an iOS user, you’re not buying a GalaxyPod (what else would these clowns name it?). If you are then you’re a terrible consumer. It’s like buying an Android watch to use with your iPhone...you’re getting a fraction of the functionality without full integration.
We have 2 iPhones and 3 Android phones at home, so what should we do? It is an illusion to assume all members of a family have all Andriod or all iOS devices. A home speaker system is shared by all members of a famliy and should integrate with both eco systems. If not, its appeal will be not be that high.
It will be interesting to see and know how HomePod will interact with those that use Apple Music on an Android device. Surely this has been a thought of the engineers on both HomePod and Apple Music teams.
Basically, a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue. The reason all those speaker/receive companies are consolidating is because people are tired of their really crappy sound no matter how much you pay for them. Why? Because the speaker and receiver part alone is not the issue. It's putting them in a particular environment that's unsuited for them, and not being able to adapt to the music or listener location that's the issue.
Apple is offering an adaptive to room, music, etc, minimum setup speaker.
None of those bozos producing traditional speakers or sound systems have the processing chops to do anything about this; they're as doomed long term as the traditional watch makers.
This post is a lot of nonsense. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Maybe learn English or stop posting then.
The room acoustics and ambient sound, setup and placement is crucial to the sound you get..
The number of people who buy speakers/sound systems and then put them in their room and it sucks ass and they are not satisfied is beyond measure.
That's why the whole industry is slowly being decimated and consolidated; people prefer portable sounds to the actual sounds these systems produce.
The only place where those systems still make some sense is in home theater installations were the shear number of speakers overwhelms whatever deficiency there is and high fidelity is less important.
That you ding someone for not speaking English well and then make a grammatical mistake in your first sentence is hilarious. Honestly, better etiquette would do wonders for getting your points across.
Anyway, part of what you are saying is true: Yes, acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference in the quality of sound reproduction.
But to blame that for why people are turning away from better audio components is completely off-base. The real reason is that many people look at the price of what they're buying and the functionality that comes with that purchase and go for cheap(er) and easy. The majority of people have decided that portable solutions using Bluetooth and/or music streaming services that play lossy (AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) files are good enough. For them, the balance of quality and price is fine. To be honest, some of these wireless/portable systems can actually sound decent, even if they can't really compete with what you can get from a system built to produce high fidelity.
There is still a place in our modern lives for better quality systems in the living room or wherever people listen to music, some of which don't actually cost an arm and a leg (although most do, which is the real reason why the industry is suffering -- there aren't enough people willing to pay several hundred or thousands of dollars to get better sound). But for many, many people, that is a secondary consideration to convenience and cost. And that is real reason why the audio industry is suffering.
Basically, a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue. The reason all those speaker/receive companies are consolidating is because people are tired of their really crappy sound no matter how much you pay for them. Why? Because the speaker and receiver part alone is not the issue. It's putting them in a particular environment that's unsuited for them, and not being able to adapt to the music or listener location that's the issue.
Apple is offering an adaptive to room, music, etc, minimum setup speaker.
None of those bozos producing traditional speakers or sound systems have the processing chops to do anything about this; they're as doomed long term as the traditional watch makers.
This post is a lot of nonsense. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Maybe learn English or stop posting then.
The room acoustics and ambient sound, setup and placement is crucial to the sound you get..
The number of people who buy speakers/sound systems and then put them in their room and it sucks ass and they are not satisfied is beyond measure.
That's why the whole industry is slowly being decimated and consolidated; people prefer portable sounds to the actual sounds these systems produce.
The only place where those systems still make some sense is in home theater installations were the shear number of speakers overwhelms whatever deficiency there is and high fidelity is less important.
You've presented absolutely no evidence for any of your baseless claims, just more nonsense (and ignorance).
The whole traditional industry is going down and so it is consolidating, The person selling audio are not the traditional ones.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except Apple is not really doing a "wireless speaker" considering it got a A8... So, that's kind of a non sicatur, in fact Apple is probably opening a whole new market segment in audio equipment.
If Samsung puts a big chip in their speakers they'll be copying Apple.
Basically, a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue. The reason all those speaker/receive companies are consolidating is because people are tired of their really crappy sound no matter how much you pay for them. Why? Because the speaker and receiver part alone is not the issue. It's putting them in a particular environment that's unsuited for them, and not being able to adapt to the music or listener location that's the issue.
Apple is offering an adaptive to room, music, etc, minimum setup speaker.
None of those bozos producing traditional speakers or sound systems have the processing chops to do anything about this; they're as doomed long term as the traditional watch makers.
This post is a lot of nonsense. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Maybe learn English or stop posting then.
The room acoustics and ambient sound, setup and placement is crucial to the sound you get..
The number of people who buy speakers/sound systems and then put them in their room and it sucks ass and they are not satisfied is beyond measure.
That's why the whole industry is slowly being decimated and consolidated; people prefer portable sounds to the actual sounds these systems produce.
The only place where those systems still make some sense is in home theater installations were the shear number of speakers overwhelms whatever deficiency there is and high fidelity is less important.
That you ding someone for not speaking English well and then make a grammatical mistake in your first sentence is hilarious. Honestly, better etiquette would do wonders for getting your points across.
Anyway, part of what you are saying is true: Yes, acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference in the quality of sound reproduction.
But to blame that for why people are turning away from better audio components is completely off-base. The real reason is that many people look at the price of what they're buying and the functionality that comes with that purchase and go for cheap(er) and easy. The majority of people have decided that portable solutions using Bluetooth and/or music streaming services that play lossy (AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) files are good enough. For them, the balance of quality and price is fine. To be honest, some of these wireless/portable systems can actually sound decent, even if they can't really compete with what you can get from a system built to produce high fidelity.
There is still a place in our modern lives for better quality systems in the living room or wherever people listen to music, some of which don't actually cost an arm and a leg (although most do, which is the real reason why the industry is suffering -- there aren't enough people willing to pay several hundred or thousands of dollars to get better sound). But for many, many people, that is a secondary consideration to convenience and cost. And that is real reason why the audio industry is suffering.
I was dinging comprehension, not grammar. I type too fast for my own good so yes, there are errors here and there.
And yes, the traditional industry is 100% suffering and his reply denying this is what pissed me off. It's obvious seeing as the number of players are going down by the day,
Convenience over quality is what gave us 128kbs for a long time in mp3s, so for most people it is a certainty that this is the most important point.
The fact that getting good sound is very inconvenient is just an extra incentive for them not to bother. Apple can help here.
Basically, a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue. The reason all those speaker/receive companies are consolidating is because people are tired of their really crappy sound no matter how much you pay for them. Why? Because the speaker and receiver part alone is not the issue. It's putting them in a particular environment that's unsuited for them, and not being able to adapt to the music or listener location that's the issue.
Apple is offering an adaptive to room, music, etc, minimum setup speaker.
None of those bozos producing traditional speakers or sound systems have the processing chops to do anything about this; they're as doomed long term as the traditional watch makers.
This post is a lot of nonsense. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Maybe learn English or stop posting then.
The room acoustics and ambient sound, setup and placement is crucial to the sound you get..
The number of people who buy speakers/sound systems and then put them in their room and it sucks ass and they are not satisfied is beyond measure.
That's why the whole industry is slowly being decimated and consolidated; people prefer portable sounds to the actual sounds these systems produce.
The only place where those systems still make some sense is in home theater installations were the shear number of speakers overwhelms whatever deficiency there is and high fidelity is less important.
That you ding someone for not speaking English well and then make a grammatical mistake in your first sentence is hilarious. Honestly, better etiquette would do wonders for getting your points across.
Anyway, part of what you are saying is true: Yes, acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference in the quality of sound reproduction.
But to blame that for why people are turning away from better audio components is completely off-base. The real reason is that many people look at the price of what they're buying and the functionality that comes with that purchase and go for cheap(er) and easy. The majority of people have decided that portable solutions using Bluetooth and/or music streaming services that play lossy (AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) files are good enough. For them, the balance of quality and price is fine. To be honest, some of these wireless/portable systems can actually sound decent, even if they can't really compete with what you can get from a system built to produce high fidelity.
There is still a place in our modern lives for better quality systems in the living room or wherever people listen to music, some of which don't actually cost an arm and a leg (although most do, which is the real reason why the industry is suffering -- there aren't enough people willing to pay several hundred or thousands of dollars to get better sound). But for many, many people, that is a secondary consideration to convenience and cost. And that is real reason why the audio industry is suffering.
There is a common mistake in conversations about trends in the quality of consumer audio. People want to compare the the current sound from iPhones, iPods, mp3s played through various earbuds to high-end home audio from days of yore, with the tube amps, and the boutique vinyl pressings, and the magnaplaner speakers, etc., and lament that trends in consumer audio are going down the tubes. The opposite is actually true. If the high-end audio business is suffering, it's because the low-end gear is vastly improved. Coming up through the decades, most home audio consumers were listening through handheld transistor am radios, cardboard box turntables with record stackers and two-inch speakers, 8-track tapes, cassette tapes, mass produced vinyl gobbed up with dust and fingerprints, off-brand walkmans, boom boxes, and stereo component racks from K-mart.
Compared to all that, the sound you get from streaming Apple Music on an iPhone through some stock earbuds or via Bluetooth and a beer-can speaker is orders of magnitude better. So is audio from a TV sound bar, coming from an AppleTV box. For a while in the 80s, people with component systems could get a graphic EQ with a white noise generator to try to manually compensate for speaker and room deficiencies. This fall, you'll be able to get a HomePod that does all that not just for EQ, but for room acoustics. The truth is, that thing playing Apple Music files will likely produce sound that's orders of magnitude better than even decent, moderately priced home component systems from back in the day. Yes, current audiophile stuff is still going to be better, but the average consumer probably isn't going to feel the need to make the investment, when they can spend less and get HomePod audio networked throughout the house.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except Apple is not really doing a "wireless speaker" considering it got a A8... So, that's kind of a non sicatur, in fact Apple is probably opening a whole new market segment in audio equipment.
If Samsung puts a big chip in their speakers they'll be copying Apple.
As I said, there were wireless speakers then there were smart speakers. The homepod is a smart speaker. What does the homepod do that the ones from Amazon, Google, and MS not do?
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except Apple is not really doing a "wireless speaker" considering it got a A8... So, that's kind of a non sicatur, in fact Apple is probably opening a whole new market segment in audio equipment.
If Samsung puts a big chip in their speakers they'll be copying Apple.
As I said, there were wireless speakers then there were smart speakers. The homepod is a smart speaker. What does the homepod do that the ones from Amazon, Google, and MS not do?
For one, they'll cater the audio output to the room's acoustics. For two, they haven't been released yet, so I suspect there are additional capabilities that are yet to be announced.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
My point is that if you’re an iOS user, you’re not buying a GalaxyPod (what else would these clowns name it?). If you are then you’re a terrible consumer. It’s like buying an Android watch to use with your iPhone...you’re getting a fraction of the functionality without full integration.
We have 2 iPhones and 3 Android phones at home, so what should we do? It is an illusion to assume all members of a family have all Andriod or all iOS devices. A home speaker system is shared by all members of a famliy and should integrate with both eco systems. If not, its appeal will be not be that high.
This example has nothing to do with what I'm saying. In this case a Samsung speaker would be integrating with the Android users in your household, therefore not really competing with any Apple devices. You would have two separate speakers for two separate operating systems. Nobody is going to buy a Samsung speaker to use with iOS, therefore they're in no way they're challenging Apple.
This is the same logical fallacy as saying the latest Samsung phone is challenging the iPhone. There are countless studies online showing that the majority of iPhone users are fiercely loyal to the brand and have no interest in other products; Samsung phones are challenging other Android phones for users, not Apple.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
The companies Samsung acquired in the process were JBL, Harman Kardon, Mark Levinson, AKG, Lexicon, Infinity, and Revel. Plus they have access to licenses from Bowers & Wilkins and Bang & Olufsen. Those are big names in the sound industry, with more experience than Apple + Beats. I see no reason for Samsung to release a speaker with better sound quality than the competition, including Apple.
I see no reason for you to be posting here, troll.
No reason for you to be calling anyone names either. At least he posted info many of us weren't aware of. I know I wasn't aware how many audio companies Samsung had snatched up and am quite surprised at some of the names.
He posted info that many of you could've learned on the internet, without the need for his Samsung cheer-leading on an Apple forum. But if you're offended I can give you a hug.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
The companies Samsung acquired in the process were JBL, Harman Kardon, Mark Levinson, AKG, Lexicon, Infinity, and Revel. Plus they have access to licenses from Bowers & Wilkins and Bang & Olufsen. Those are big names in the sound industry, with more experience than Apple + Beats. I see no reason for Samsung to release a speaker with better sound quality than the competition, including Apple.
I see no reason for you to be posting here, troll.
No reason for you to be calling anyone names either. At least he posted info many of us weren't aware of. I know I wasn't aware how many audio companies Samsung had snatched up and am quite surprised at some of the names.
He posted info that many of you could've learned on the internet, without the need for his Samsung cheer-leading on an Apple forum. But if you're offended I can give you a hug.
Well thanks. Hugs are always welcome... Personal insults are not.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except Apple is not really doing a "wireless speaker" considering it got a A8... So, that's kind of a non sicatur, in fact Apple is probably opening a whole new market segment in audio equipment.
If Samsung puts a big chip in their speakers they'll be copying Apple.
As I said, there were wireless speakers then there were smart speakers. The homepod is a smart speaker. What does the homepod do that the ones from Amazon, Google, and MS not do?
I've already said it in 3 posts, Apple's main differentiating factor is NOT SIRI,. But adjusting acoustics to room, how room reacts to music and even user placement.
So, NO THEY ARE NOT OFFERING THE SAME THING. Good grief. It's like people have actually missed the whole homepod announcement.
Basically, a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue. The reason all those speaker/receive companies are consolidating is because people are tired of their really crappy sound no matter how much you pay for them. Why? Because the speaker and receiver part alone is not the issue. It's putting them in a particular environment that's unsuited for them, and not being able to adapt to the music or listener location that's the issue.
Apple is offering an adaptive to room, music, etc, minimum setup speaker.
None of those bozos producing traditional speakers or sound systems have the processing chops to do anything about this; they're as doomed long term as the traditional watch makers.
This post is a lot of nonsense. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Maybe learn English or stop posting then.
The room acoustics and ambient sound, setup and placement is crucial to the sound you get..
The number of people who buy speakers/sound systems and then put them in their room and it sucks ass and they are not satisfied is beyond measure.
That's why the whole industry is slowly being decimated and consolidated; people prefer portable sounds to the actual sounds these systems produce.
The only place where those systems still make some sense is in home theater installations were the shear number of speakers overwhelms whatever deficiency there is and high fidelity is less important.
That you ding someone for not speaking English well and then make a grammatical mistake in your first sentence is hilarious. Honestly, better etiquette would do wonders for getting your points across.
Anyway, part of what you are saying is true: Yes, acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference in the quality of sound reproduction.
But to blame that for why people are turning away from better audio components is completely off-base. The real reason is that many people look at the price of what they're buying and the functionality that comes with that purchase and go for cheap(er) and easy. The majority of people have decided that portable solutions using Bluetooth and/or music streaming services that play lossy (AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) files are good enough. For them, the balance of quality and price is fine. To be honest, some of these wireless/portable systems can actually sound decent, even if they can't really compete with what you can get from a system built to produce high fidelity.
There is still a place in our modern lives for better quality systems in the living room or wherever people listen to music, some of which don't actually cost an arm and a leg (although most do, which is the real reason why the industry is suffering -- there aren't enough people willing to pay several hundred or thousands of dollars to get better sound). But for many, many people, that is a secondary consideration to convenience and cost. And that is real reason why the audio industry is suffering.
I was dinging comprehension, not grammar. I type too fast for my own good so yes, there are errors here and there.
And yes, the traditional industry is 100% suffering and his reply denying this is what pissed me off. It's obvious seeing as the number of players are going down by the day,
Convenience over quality is what gave us 128kbs for a long time in mp3s, so for most people it is a certainty that this is the most important point.
The fact that getting good sound is very inconvenient is just an extra incentive for them not to bother. Apple can help here.
You're right that Apple could help in file format field. When Apple introduced AAC to improve upon 128K/mp3, it showed that it cared about sound quality and was getting people to appreciate the difference. However, the days of lack of storage and wireless throughput that made AAC such a good compromise are long gone. I wish Apple would put more emphasis on CD-quality playback, or at the very least make its ALAC format the baseline. With even moderately good equipment, I think many people would hear the difference or just enjoy less harsh music.
And like I pointed out, it is actually possible to get a fairly decent playback system or headphones that bring out the difference in higher resolution files without spending tons of money. That coupled with more ALAC-friendly settings in iTunes and a CD-quality tier in Apple Music would be fantastic and a strong gesture towards "democratizing" access to good sound.
As an aside, I am really eager to hear how the HomePad sounds (especially in stereo). It seems like it will address many of your concerns about equipment placement, essentially introducing digital signal processing (DSP) for the rest of us.
Comments
Alexa is used a lot more than Siri?
Do you have any evidence for that?
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/11/siri-usage-and-engagement-dropped-since-last-year-as-alexa-and-cortana-grew/
Although Siri has taken a big hit, it's still used more than its competitors. However, I don't see this continuing for much longer unless Apple pulls its finger out.
These figures are for the US only.
Samsung rep: "Anywhere you like really, but underneath a smoke alarm is probably best."
Gladys: "No problem, I can put it in the kitchen."
Samsung rep:"Great! No, waitasec… Do you have a Samsung washing machine?"
Gladys: "Er… Yes."
Samsung rep: "In the kitchen?"
Gladys: "Oooh good point. How about the living room?"
Samsung rep: "I see you're calling on one of our phones."
Gladys: "Yes, how did you…?"
Samsung rep: "Where do you usually charge it?"
Gladys: "In the living roo… Oh."
Samsung rep: "Yeeeessss… Tricky. Do you have a garage or an outhouse or something?"
A home speaker system is shared by all members of a famliy and should integrate with both eco systems. If not, its appeal will be not be that high.
Anyway, part of what you are saying is true: Yes, acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference in the quality of sound reproduction.
But to blame that for why people are turning away from better audio components is completely off-base. The real reason is that many people look at the price of what they're buying and the functionality that comes with that purchase and go for cheap(er) and easy. The majority of people have decided that portable solutions using Bluetooth and/or music streaming services that play lossy (AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) files are good enough. For them, the balance of quality and price is fine. To be honest, some of these wireless/portable systems can actually sound decent, even if they can't really compete with what you can get from a system built to produce high fidelity.
There is still a place in our modern lives for better quality systems in the living room or wherever people listen to music, some of which don't actually cost an arm and a leg (although most do, which is the real reason why the industry is suffering -- there aren't enough people willing to pay several hundred or thousands of dollars to get better sound). But for many, many people, that is a secondary consideration to convenience and cost. And that is real reason why the audio industry is suffering.
Compared to all that, the sound you get from streaming Apple Music on an iPhone through some stock earbuds or via Bluetooth and a beer-can speaker is orders of magnitude better. So is audio from a TV sound bar, coming from an AppleTV box. For a while in the 80s, people with component systems could get a graphic EQ with a white noise generator to try to manually compensate for speaker and room deficiencies. This fall, you'll be able to get a HomePod that does all that not just for EQ, but for room acoustics. The truth is, that thing playing Apple Music files will likely produce sound that's orders of magnitude better than even decent, moderately priced home component systems from back in the day. Yes, current audiophile stuff is still going to be better, but the average consumer probably isn't going to feel the need to make the investment, when they can spend less and get HomePod audio networked throughout the house.
This is the same logical fallacy as saying the latest Samsung phone is challenging the iPhone. There are countless studies online showing that the majority of iPhone users are fiercely loyal to the brand and have no interest in other products; Samsung phones are challenging other Android phones for users, not Apple.
And like I pointed out, it is actually possible to get a fairly decent playback system or headphones that bring out the difference in higher resolution files without spending tons of money. That coupled with more ALAC-friendly settings in iTunes and a CD-quality tier in Apple Music would be fantastic and a strong gesture towards "democratizing" access to good sound.
As an aside, I am really eager to hear how the HomePad sounds (especially in stereo). It seems like it will address many of your concerns about equipment placement, essentially introducing digital signal processing (DSP) for the rest of us.