Ha.. I crave these DED-article-induced dopamine trips.. Always a bliss to get a fix..š¤¤ I think I have to face the truth: I am a DED-article junkie.. š
I have been a Macintosh user since the 80's plus a Gen 1: AppleTV, iPod, iPhone, iPad, and watch user, and this is the first Apple device category in years where I have no interest. First I have grown used to Alexa because Siri has been terrible for so long. The home pod solves the greatest weakness in that it is not always available in my home environment but does not solve others which are more subtle. Alexa feels more natural. When I say "Hey Siri* set a 5 minute timer" it differers from how I would ask a person. When I ask Alexa to do it I don't have to preface it with a hey. That feels much more natural. I realize it is just random phonemes to the devices but it doesn't change how using it feels for me. * which I usually can't currently because my iPhone is in my pocket or my iPad's cover is closed. At least HomePod solves that problem.
Now that I have been using Alexa for a while it would be hard to change. I am too used to walking down the stairs and asking Alexa to turn on the hallway lights or to tell "her" to set the living room lights to 10%. Apple could have solved this years ago by just building a microphone into the AppleTV with an optional external microphone accessory, for people like me who have their AppleTVs in a cabinet with the rest of their AV gear.
If we are only going to talk about the audio side of it and ignore Siri then in my open floor plan living room/dining room I currently have an Echo sitting next to my midrange 3.1 system that has my AppleTV and turnable attached to it. I find myself using the Echo way more than the better sounding system with the sub-woofer and stereo speakers. That's because for the most part listening is not the main activity I am doing where I can sit in the sweet spot for stereo separation to work properly. I am doing other things and wandering in and out from the kitchen. When watching or listening is the main activity and I am sitting in the location that I have used the auto-callibration microphone of my AV receiver to tune for, the sound is going to be way way better than HomePods adaptive algorithm will ever create. Even ignoring that the HomePod does not know where to optimally place the sound in the room, the 10" subwoofer plus stereo separated tweeters and mid-range is going to be able to create vibrations across a wider range of frequencies. For watching shows the center channel is where it belongs within a few inches of the picture. If even that is not good enough sound quality then I will put on headphones.
On this one, I believe Daniel is entirely wrong. I'll stick my neck out and say: it' is a silly analogy. The HomePod will do fine, e.g., sell a couple-of-ten millions, but it will not achieve anything close to the sales, leave alone the iconic impact of, the iPod. There is already an established market for these devices, and the two leading companies in this market are no slouches. Moreover, they've already defined the basic rules of the game. I do not see any major additional functionality that the HP brings. I agree that the design is beautiful, and I have no doubt that the sound quality is better.
If I am proven wrong, I'll be one happy shareholder, but unfortunately this'll be an also-ran product in Apple's menu of hardware offerings. In fact, even if it does about as well as AppleTV in terms of sales, I'll eat my words.
While you may well be right, youāve offered no reasons for being right. All of the reasons given similarly existed for the other Apple product successes ā established market, other big first movers. These havenāt proven barriers to Apple so I think more reasons are needed to make the claim.
I was specifically referring to the iPod comparison, and not making a broad statement. You are saying that there was an 'established market' for iPod-like devices, and from "big first movers"? Really? Who?
On this one, I believe Daniel is entirely wrong. I'll stick my neck out and say: it' is a silly analogy. The HomePod will do fine, e.g., sell a couple-of-ten millions, but it will not achieve anything close to the sales, leave alone the iconic impact of, the iPod. There is already an established market for these devices, and the two leading companies in this market are no slouches. Moreover, they've already defined the basic rules of the game. I do not see any major additional functionality that the HP brings. I agree that the design is beautiful, and I have no doubt that the sound quality is better.
If I am proven wrong, I'll be one happy shareholder, but unfortunately this'll be an also-ran product in Apple's menu of hardware offerings. In fact, even if it does about as well as AppleTV in terms of sales, I'll eat my words.
While you may well be right, youāve offered no reasons for being right. All of the reasons given similarly existed for the other Apple product successes ā established market, other big first movers. These havenāt proven barriers to Apple so I think more reasons are needed to make the claim.
I was specifically referring to the iPod comparison, and not making a broad statement. You are saying that there was an 'established market' for iPod-like devices, and from "big first movers"? Really? Who?
Yup. Read the article. Maybe youāre too young to remember but Creative (Labs) and Diamond used to be big players.
Apple is not likely to tell anyone what the real sales numbers are and reports are that do not have that many available at launch. They also have not let customers hear the Toilet Paper Roll in Fishnets- so you get to order it blind. I have no doubt it will be impressive to some, but really see it as the answer to a question few are asking.
With iPod it was an opportunity given by the small form factor hard drive that let them build a box the size of a packet of playing cards that could hold 1,000 songs (and more, in my experience)
What has HomePod got stashed away in there, hardware or software, that was previously not possible? Appleās last attempt at innovative speaker technology- the Apple HiFi- was clever but did not become a hit.
It's a win-win situation either way for the customer. If it is a success, then Apple will start making more products like it. If it fails, then Apple knows it needs to work harder and smarter to create products people want.
Asking people if they're content with what they have is POINTLESS. A majority of people will always say yes when asked that question. Until they're offered or shown something that is MUCH better, they won't realize what they have might be subpar. This is Consumer Market 101.
Apple doesn't target the "good enough" crowd and NEVER has. How many times do we have to hear it from Apple executives that they're not interested in marketshare? What product in their past has shown that that's what they're after? Regardless of what the media and techno sphere want to think and say, the HomePod is NOT Apple's answer to the Echo or Home. If that's what Apple was interested in, this device would be nothing more than an AppleTV with a built-in speaker that's "good enough".
The HomePod is nothing like that though. It is its own thing, designed with one main purpose, to play music and sound exceptional all the time, regardless of where you're listening from. And the "voice assistant" is primarily designed to facilitate just that... music searching, discovery and playback.
With iPod it was an opportunity given by the small form factor hard drive that let them build a box the size of a packet of playing cards that could hold 1,000 songs (and more, in my experience)
What has HomePod got stashed away in there, hardware or software, that was previously not possible? Appleās last attempt at innovative speaker technology- the Apple HiFi- was clever but did not become a hit.
Why now? Simple. Apple Music.
The HomePod was specifically designed with Apple Music in mind. They're meant to compliment each other with Apples Music's vast library (45 million+) and HomePod's exceptional sound quality. Giving Siri deep knowledge of music provides the glue that brings these two things seamlessly together in one package. It does not matter what all the other devices on the market can do... this is the one thing that they cannot do. And it's this one thing that will be the selling point to people who want that. Apple's targeting their Apple Music user base - that's it. That's the point - a true smart speaker. And to say it's anything other than, means you don't get it.
Personally, I don't see this appealing to anyone for any other reason than that. Maybe that's because it's the only reason I want one and will probably get one. If I didn't have Apple Music, there wouldn't be a point. I mean, I can already play music all over my house from my Mac. I can already use "Hey Siri" from just about any where around my house thanks to my iPhone and iPad. and I can already control HomeKit from my AppleTV.
Somebody tell CNBC, who trotted out BK Asset Management's Boris Schlossberg (never heard of him, just saying) to opine on Apple and HomePod: "I do think they're in trouble. I think they're making a huge mistake. They're basically betting on the fact that high expensive products can be sold at this point and it's clearly becoming evident that everybody has caught up to them in the marketplace."
It still shocks me just a bit that so many financial "experts" don't understand what Apple is all about. Most big companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, GE, Exxon etc. are fishing in a pond using Dynamite trying to catch anything and everything. Apple, on the other hand, is off on a beautiful stream, fly fishing and pulling in only the catch they really want. This position, this philosophy, is fundamental to everything Apple does. I worked for them very briefly a few years ago and I got a tiny peak at how they go about things. I'd never seen anything like it. A very carefully and thoughtfully run company. Nothing at all like the other big fish out there.
And you can see that same care applied to the HomePod. It's not like the other speakers/assistants because Apple spent a lot of time looking at what was out there and thinking about how to make something better - and something that would sell to their customer base. Judging from what little info is in the patents, there is some complex, detailed engineering and acoustic design going on here that is not present in other devices. This is not something thrown together in a couple of months and made at the cheapest factory available. There is some substance to this thing and it might very well be a starting point for a new range of audio devices.
Of course if Apple wants to convince people to buy HomePod based on the sound quality, they will need to put a quiet space in the stores. There is no way one could evaluate a HomePod in the enveloping wall of noise that is every Apple store.
Good article DED! Though not as passionate as some in the past, so the revolutionaries are a bit quieter (which is ok:)
It is hard to argue against the strangeness of this product launch, and if that is a sign to be cautious about the product. I think that (minor) criticism is valid. However, it is not until reviews of experiences of the product come in (specifically sound quality first, and Siri experience 2nd) can we really start the discussion. Everything right now is simply noise.
IMO, the dialogue around home speakers is still in the technology echo chamber. Lots of articles written about how a person has set advanced functionality using 3rd party supplied skills. However, surveys have shown that the most use functions are: - Play music - Set timers - Control lights - Tell time
Takeaways - Apple is hitting the right use case first - Uses are still pretty simple, despite skills available...so most people are not techies and they don't take the time to do advanced setup - For anyone with an Apple Watch, 3 of those things are just about as easily done on AW as compared with a smart speaker, and it is with you everywhere in the house.
On the comparison of sound quality, many focus on the original Echo, or Google Home. Information from the recent holiday season would point to the $30 Echo Dot and similarly priced Google Home Mini as being (by far) the largest sellers. The difference is likely to be more stark.
I would buy one if available where I live, just because I am in the market for a new wireless speaker (existing Bose is getting up there). However, it is a legitimate question if "great sound quality" is enough to sell beyond that core Apple loyalist. Perhaps not in the first release. But as DED said, maybe that is enough and what a HomePod can do in 3 years (perhaps with just s/w updates to the original) will be enough to change the game.
I have been reading quite a few articles on the HomePod...I haven't seen anyone talk about whether it can be used as a speaker for my AppleTV. I would seriously consider buying one to get great sound for music, Siri, HomeKit support and immersive sound for my TV...
If someone has played with the beta software and can advise, that would be great!
Any AirPlay speaker can be used with the AppleTV. Anytime I watch a live concert video I "AirPlay" the audio output to my AirPort Express which is connected to my stereo.
I believe the HomePod will be released in different versions,itās being sold as the iPod of the home ,so maybe weāll see an HomePod mini,nano,etc...
Ha.. I crave these DED-article-induced dopamine trips.. Always a bliss to get a fix..ߤ䦬t;br>I think I have to face the truth: I am a DED-article junkie.. ßį¦¬t;/div>
Haha...I agree. DEG articles always remind me of good things...like the first time I opened the original iPod Shuffle. That beautiful Apple white plastic wrapped in cellophane.
Only Apple could make 'plastic' beautiful! Matched my MacBook perfectly!
And the iPod Mini's red brushed aluminum with white accents! Good times!
I only buy Apple designed products...if Apple doesn't make it, I prefer to do without. (TV, printers being the notable exceptions.)
I refuse to buy "Costco-esque" junkie, clunky, 'plastic' devices.
I"ve passed on the whole Home automation scene, much like I passed on MP3 players until the iPod Shuffle came out.
Good article. I love the history Daniel brings to the table!
So I guess you'll only buy a washer/dryer, microwave/kitchen appliances, shaver/blowdryer/grooming appliance, etc, etc when Apple makes it?
I'd assume you gave in on buying a non-Apple toilet?
I only buy Apple designed products...if Apple doesn't make it, I prefer to do without. (TV, printers being the notable exceptions.)
I refuse to buy "Costco-esque" junkie, clunky, 'plastic' devices.
I"ve passed on the whole Home automation scene, much like I passed on MP3 players until the iPod Shuffle came out.
Good article. I love the history Daniel brings to the table!
So I guess you'll only buy a washer/dryer, microwave/kitchen appliances, shaver/blowdryer/grooming appliance, etc, etc when Apple makes it?
I'd assume you gave in on buying a non-Apple toilet?
Have you seen how many people have Appleās white ear buds sticking out of their ears? Sorry but most people donāt care that much about sound quality.
Have you ever measured them?
I work in the pro-audio industry and the company I work for is working on high end earbuds.
Iām told that āAppleās earbuds measure extremely wellā.
This is a completely objective conclusion reached by specialist engineers.
The earbuds Apple includes with iPhones? Youāre joking, right?
People who are buying a basic Bluetooth speaker on Amazon, or who are looking for the novelty of Alexa, are not Apple's target audience of HomePod.
The entire point of the article was that when iPod arrived, it was compared against MP3 sticks, clunky hard drives and CD Players. The people who wanted those things didn't rush out to pay 2-4X for an iPod. The people who wanted a cool new luxury audio device paid $399 for it. It took 3-4 years before Apple dominated the market.
At that point, there were still cheapskates insisting that they got a smashing deal on a $100 MP3 player, and there were people who paraded around a Zune. We don't remember them today because they don't matter. We remember that iPod was a phenomenon, and Apple made tons of money from it, and became a content titan. And that funded iPhone.
So Appleās Target is people who want a ācool luxury audio deviceā? My first question is why and second is how big is that market? Seems pretty niche to me. I have no doubt HomePod has excellent sound quality. But I do have doubts that excellent sound quality is more important than voice UI and turning Siri into a real platform. I also think it will be easier for Amazon and Google to match HomePodās sound quality than it will be for Siri to become the best assistant OS on the market unless Apple puts significantly more attention and resources on Siri, Rene Ritchie says Siri needs itās own VP to drive it forward. I agree. Eddy Cue is not the guy to do it
LOL...Echo is "good enough"? Have these guys actually looked at the speaker design of the Echo? It has one tweeter and one woofer, and the sound just escapes via the holes in the cylinder. It's not actually being directed anywhere.
Have you seen how many people have Appleās white ear buds sticking out of their ears? Sorry but most people donāt care that much about sound quality.
Two points:
1. Mobile sound isn't the same as home sound. Apple's ear buds are comparable to similar sized mobile sound devices. Sure you could get much larger, studio-quality headphones if you're really into sound. But most people are willing to trade sound quality for convenience and portability when they're on-the-go. 2. Most people eat at fast food restaurants too. It doesn't mean there isn't a market for well prepared food.
Sure bur how large is this market and is it what Apple should be focusing on? I would argue Siri is more important than high quality audio. I think itās more important for Apple to be competing with Alex and Google Assistant than high end audio equipment.
LOL...Echo is "good enough"? Have these guys actually looked at the speaker design of the Echo? It has one tweeter and one woofer, and the sound just escapes via the holes in the cylinder. It's not actually being directed anywhere.
Have you seen how many people have Appleās white ear buds sticking out of their ears? Sorry but most people donāt care that much about sound quality.
I think thereās a context difference between whatās free in the box, and somebody shopping for a shelf speaker that they presumably want to sound good.
And the market of people shopping for a shelf speaker that sounds good is how big exactly? I would argue Siri and voice UI is way more important than high quality audio and Apple should be gunning for Alexa and Google Assistant. I have no doubt that Apple will sell a good number of HomePods and people will gloat about Apple earning all of the profits in the smart speaker space. Meanwhile Siri and Appleās voice UI efforts tred water.
Asking people if they're content with what they have is POINTLESS. A majority of people will always say yes when asked that question. Until they're offered or shown something that is MUCH better, they won't realize what they have might be subpar. This is Consumer Market 101.
Apple doesn't target the "good enough" crowd and NEVER has. How many times do we have to hear it from Apple executives that they're not interested in marketshare? What product in their past has shown that that's what they're after? Regardless of what the media and techno sphere want to think and say, the HomePod is NOT Apple's answer to the Echo or Home. If that's what Apple was interested in, this device would be nothing more than an AppleTV with a built-in speaker that's "good enough".
The HomePod is nothing like that though. It is its own thing, designed with one main purpose, to play music and sound exceptional all the time, regardless of where you're listening from. And the "voice assistant" is primarily designed to facilitate just that... music searching, discovery and playback.
Youāre totally missing the point if you think this is about market share. Itās about priorities. Youāre right, HomePod is not Appleās answer to Echo or Home. And thatās precisely why Ben Bajarin and others have concerns. Like Ben said, the battle will be over how useful the voice UI is not how good the sound quality is. I want Apple to be competing with Alexa and Google Assistant. The better sound quality should be a bonus not the main feature.
Comments
I think I have to face the truth: I am a DED-article junkie.. š
Now that I have been using Alexa for a while it would be hard to change. I am too used to walking down the stairs and asking Alexa to turn on the hallway lights or to tell "her" to set the living room lights to 10%. Apple could have solved this years ago by just building a microphone into the AppleTV with an optional external microphone accessory, for people like me who have their AppleTVs in a cabinet with the rest of their AV gear.
If we are only going to talk about the audio side of it and ignore Siri then in my open floor plan living room/dining room I currently have an Echo sitting next to my midrange 3.1 system that has my AppleTV and turnable attached to it. I find myself using the Echo way more than the better sounding system with the sub-woofer and stereo speakers. That's because for the most part listening is not the main activity I am doing where I can sit in the sweet spot for stereo separation to work properly. I am doing other things and wandering in and out from the kitchen. When watching or listening is the main activity and I am sitting in the location that I have used the auto-callibration microphone of my AV receiver to tune for, the sound is going to be way way better than HomePods adaptive algorithm will ever create. Even ignoring that the HomePod does not know where to optimally place the sound in the room, the 10" subwoofer plus stereo separated tweeters and mid-range is going to be able to create vibrations across a wider range of frequencies. For watching shows the center channel is where it belongs within a few inches of the picture. If even that is not good enough sound quality then I will put on headphones.
I have no doubt it will be impressive to some, but really see it as the answer to a question few are asking.
Asking people if they're content with what they have is POINTLESS. A majority of people will always say yes when asked that question. Until they're offered or shown something that is MUCH better, they won't realize what they have might be subpar. This is Consumer Market 101.
Apple doesn't target the "good enough" crowd and NEVER has. How many times do we have to hear it from Apple executives that they're not interested in marketshare? What product in their past has shown that that's what they're after? Regardless of what the media and techno sphere want to think and say, the HomePod is NOT Apple's answer to the Echo or Home. If that's what Apple was interested in, this device would be nothing more than an AppleTV with a built-in speaker that's "good enough".
The HomePod is nothing like that though. It is its own thing, designed with one main purpose, to play music and sound exceptional all the time, regardless of where you're listening from. And the "voice assistant" is primarily designed to facilitate just that... music searching, discovery and playback.
Why now? Simple. Apple Music.
The HomePod was specifically designed with Apple Music in mind. They're meant to compliment each other with Apples Music's vast library (45 million+) and HomePod's exceptional sound quality. Giving Siri deep knowledge of music provides the glue that brings these two things seamlessly together in one package. It does not matter what all the other devices on the market can do... this is the one thing that they cannot do. And it's this one thing that will be the selling point to people who want that. Apple's targeting their Apple Music user base - that's it. That's the point - a true smart speaker. And to say it's anything other than, means you don't get it.
Personally, I don't see this appealing to anyone for any other reason than that. Maybe that's because it's the only reason I want one and will probably get one. If I didn't have Apple Music, there wouldn't be a point. I mean, I can already play music all over my house from my Mac. I can already use "Hey Siri" from just about any where around my house thanks to my iPhone and iPad. and I can already control HomeKit from my AppleTV.
And you can see that same care applied to the HomePod. It's not like the other speakers/assistants because Apple spent a lot of time looking at what was out there and thinking about how to make something better - and something that would sell to their customer base. Judging from what little info is in the patents, there is some complex, detailed engineering and acoustic design going on here that is not present in other devices. This is not something thrown together in a couple of months and made at the cheapest factory available. There is some substance to this thing and it might very well be a starting point for a new range of audio devices.
Of course if Apple wants to convince people to buy HomePod based on the sound quality, they will need to put a quiet space in the stores. There is no way one could evaluate a HomePod in the enveloping wall of noise that is every Apple store.
It is hard to argue against the strangeness of this product launch, and if that is a sign to be cautious about the product. I think that (minor) criticism is valid. However, it is not until reviews of experiences of the product come in (specifically sound quality first, and Siri experience 2nd) can we really start the discussion. Everything right now is simply noise.
IMO, the dialogue around home speakers is still in the technology echo chamber. Lots of articles written about how a person has set advanced functionality using 3rd party supplied skills. However, surveys have shown that the most use functions are:
- Play music
- Set timers
- Control lights
- Tell time
Takeaways
- Apple is hitting the right use case first
- Uses are still pretty simple, despite skills available...so most people are not techies and they don't take the time to do advanced setup
- For anyone with an Apple Watch, 3 of those things are just about as easily done on AW as compared with a smart speaker, and it is with you everywhere in the house.
On the comparison of sound quality, many focus on the original Echo, or Google Home. Information from the recent holiday season would point to the $30 Echo Dot and similarly priced Google Home Mini as being (by far) the largest sellers. The difference is likely to be more stark.
I would buy one if available where I live, just because I am in the market for a new wireless speaker (existing Bose is getting up there). However, it is a legitimate question if "great sound quality" is enough to sell beyond that core Apple loyalist. Perhaps not in the first release. But as DED said, maybe that is enough and what a HomePod can do in 3 years (perhaps with just s/w updates to the original) will be enough to change the game.
Any AirPlay speaker can be used with the AppleTV. Anytime I watch a live concert video I "AirPlay" the audio output to my AirPort Express which is connected to my stereo.
Only Apple could make 'plastic' beautiful! Matched my MacBook perfectly!
And the iPod Mini's red brushed aluminum with white accents! Good times!
You forgot 'car.'
I was thinking more in the realm of tech devices.
Best.