The benefit of having a "living" finish like oiled wood is that i like the look & i can fix its appearance relatively easily.
Exactly! I love wood furniture. Especially those with beautiful grain. I only have a few pieces that are sealed with lacquer or varnish. My coffee table, for example. It gets used a lot so having it sealed makes it easier to maintain.
While ultimately minor, this is a pretty glaring oversight on Apple's part. Any reasonably successful company should be ashamed at themselves for using a subpar material that can do this to a surface, but for Apple (and many others, not just them) it's an inexcusable oversight.
Silicone rubber, an elastomer, is probably one of the most inert compounds in common use today, and widely used in medical fields for its biocompatibility.
You make it sound like it's an all-or-nothing, single chemical formula. I can assure you this isn't the case.
This is the part where you assure me by explaining why this isn't the case.
Where does one begin? If you don't know that silicone can come in countless forms for innumerable applications then I'm not sure there's anything I can say that won't come across as too technical. Here's a Wikipedia page that will scratch the surface of the vastness of that term.
So you are a chemist? A chemical engineer? A plastics engineer?
How about an example of the specific silicone formulation that you would have picked if you were Apple? How about how you would process that?
your words;
"Any reasonably successful company should be ashamed at themselves for using a subpar material that can do this to a surface, but for Apple (and many others, not just them) it's an inexcusable oversight"
You complained about Apple's choice of material, so give me an alternative.
So you're telling me that I need to do all the possible testing for Apple (which they should've knocked out over several months with a team of people testing dozens of compounds) so you can have an answer because you believe Apple is infallible and therefore would've never made a mistake by not putting a thin layer over the base to protect it from a commonly used surfaces in homes? Talk about a logical fallacy. Instead, why not at least read enough to know that not all materials are made the same. I know you didn't read the Wikipedia page I posted so I don't know why I'm posting an even more in-depth link, but here you go.
PS: Since my comment Apple has literally made an official statement that mentioned exactly what I said about certain surfaces and "vibration-dampening silicon" despite your suggestion that all silicon is created equal.
You made mention of porosity, but it's an elastomer that could be foamed with the addition of some chemicals. Still, why would you want a foam when you could easily use the proper durometer that's readily available that would have the damping properties that you wanted?
So, you have an elastomeric surface that you want to coat with...teflon which is widely consider to be very resistant to almost all other chemicals?
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
If you want to don't want to keep your HomePod on something that stands out you can use something simple, like packing tape. under the area that would touch the wood surface. This will keep the silicon from reacting with the oil residue without being unsightly or affecting its utility. Of course, there are countless other home remedies for this potential issue, but tape is the simplest and most common solution I could think of.
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
Anything that would prevent the ring from forming on surfaces commonly found where you'd place a small speaker. Do you honestly believe there's one right answer? It's like if I mentioned that Samsung dropped the ball on properly testing batteries that caused damage and you chimed back with "EXPLAIN ME TO THE EXACT CHEMICAL FORMUA FOR THE BATTERY THEY SHOULD'VE USED!1!" It's irreverent and you'd sound like a Samsung zealot if you said that… just as you sound like an Apple zealot because I said it's an oversight by Apple.
On John Gruber’s site he says anyone who encounters this should be outraged. Why do I get the feeling this is going to turn into another gate? Even though at this point we don’t even know for sure what’s causing it, how many different surfaces it impacts or if it leaves a permanent mark or can be wiped clean. Obviously if it leaves a mark that can’t be wiped clean that’s a huge miss on Apple’s part. But we don’t know at this point if that’s the case or not.
those ATP boys sure do experience a lot of outrage. at least this time it’s not over keyboard key travel.
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
Anything that would prevent the ring from forming on surfaces commonly found where you'd place a small speaker. Do you honestly believe there's one right answer? It's like if I mentioned that Samsung dropped the ball on properly testing batteries that caused damage and you chimed back with "EXPLAIN ME TO THE EXACT CHEMICAL FORMUA FOR THE BATTERY THEY SHOULD'VE USED!1!" It's irreverent and you'd sound like a Samsung zealot if you said that… just as you sound like an Apple zealot because I said it's an oversight by Apple.
A very weak and defensive response, so, I'm guessing this conversation has ended.
Apple need some chemistry experts, the iPhone cables suffer a reaction that first get yellowish and later the outside cover disintegrates, just from contact with the oil of the fingers.
But for the homepod the solution is using the bumper in an imaginative way the thing will recognize the change and adapt itself.
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
Anything that would prevent the ring from forming on surfaces commonly found where you'd place a small speaker. Do you honestly believe there's one right answer? It's like if I mentioned that Samsung dropped the ball on properly testing batteries that caused damage and you chimed back with "EXPLAIN ME TO THE EXACT CHEMICAL FORMUA FOR THE BATTERY THEY SHOULD'VE USED!1!" It's irreverent and you'd sound like a Samsung zealot if you said that… just as you sound like an Apple zealot because I said it's an oversight by Apple.
A very weak and defensive response, so, I'm guessing this conversation has ended.
Why don't you explain to me why it's impossible to do anything about this issue and why you believe it's unreasonable for Apple to have discovered this with countless engineers and many years of design and testing. Keep in mind they're touting their amazing sound chamber and yet you're arguing that it's impossible for Apple to have testing how the product reacts to typical surfaces it would encounter.
I also think it's an oversight by FitBit to not have tested how their plastic bands would react with some people with allergies, yet I don't recall you standing up for them and demanding that people explain exactly what the chemical formula they should use or how they're not at a fault simply because it didn't affect every person (i.e.: surface) in which the bands were placed. And, yet, they issued a recall with a full refund, as I recall.
PS: You make Apple look bad when blindly defend everything they do. One of Apple's biggest fanboys, John Gruber, even said this should've been caught and corrected.
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
Anything that would prevent the ring from forming on surfaces commonly found where you'd place a small speaker. Do you honestly believe there's one right answer? It's like if I mentioned that Samsung dropped the ball on properly testing batteries that caused damage and you chimed back with "EXPLAIN ME TO THE EXACT CHEMICAL FORMUA FOR THE BATTERY THEY SHOULD'VE USED!1!" It's irreverent and you'd sound like a Samsung zealot if you said that… just as you sound like an Apple zealot because I said it's an oversight by Apple.
The Galaxy Note 7 battery fires were found to be due to some specific errors in the design and implementation of those batteries. “Chemical formula” is probably not the right question, but I think ultimately Samsung themselves were pretty specific in naming the issues that were at the root of that problem.
Unlike battery design and manufacturing that can and should be controlled to a point where there aren’t very many variables that haven’t been considered, it’s about impossible for a manufacturer to anticipate and eliminate all problems that could result from the wide variety of finishes and cleaning products that are used for home furniture. So your second sentence above kind of undermines the insistence in the first sentence. I think Apple probably did make the HomePod out of materials that won’t cause a ring “on surfaces commonly found where you’d place a small speaker.” It’s a much taller order to insist that they use materials that won’t interact in any way with any surface. Apple has a core principle of controlling variables within their products. It’s not really possible to control all the variables that exist outside but proximate to their products. Nobody can do that.
Apple need some chemistry experts, the iPhone cables suffer a reaction that first get yellowish and later the outside cover disintegrates, just from contact with the oil of the fingers.
But for the homepod the solution is using the bumper in an imaginative way the thing will recognize the change and adapt itself.
Here's a link to sebum, the oils that some animals, including humans, produce:
Wait so Apple didn't include the black micro fiber cloth that comes with almost every product?
Do they still do that? I haven't opened the "envelope" that contains the Apple logo stickers in countless years. If there are microfiber clothes in there that's a score for me since I have all my old device boxes.
Quick survey of boxes on my desk. iMac yes - Airpods No. Maybe start with the biggest box.
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
Anything that would prevent the ring from forming on surfaces commonly found where you'd place a small speaker. Do you honestly believe there's one right answer? It's like if I mentioned that Samsung dropped the ball on properly testing batteries that caused damage and you chimed back with "EXPLAIN ME TO THE EXACT CHEMICAL FORMUA FOR THE BATTERY THEY SHOULD'VE USED!1!" It's irreverent and you'd sound like a Samsung zealot if you said that… just as you sound like an Apple zealot because I said it's an oversight by Apple.
The Galaxy Note 7 battery fires were found to be due to some specific errors in the design and implementation of those batteries. “Chemical formula” is probably not the right question, but I think ultimately Samsung themselves were pretty specific in naming the issues that were at the root of that problem.
Unlike battery design and manufacturing that can and should be controlled to a point where there aren’t very many variables that haven’t been considered, it’s about impossible for a manufacturer to anticipate and eliminate all problems that could result from the wide variety of finishes and cleaning products that are used for home furniture. So your second sentence above kind of undermines the insistence in the first sentence. I think Apple probably did make the HomePod out of materials that won’t cause a ring “on surfaces commonly found where you’d place a small speaker.” It’s a much taller order to insist that they use materials that won’t interact in any way with any surface. Apple has a core principle of controlling variables within their products. It’s not really possible to control all the variables that exist outside but proximate to their products. Nobody can do that.
That doesn't affect my comment since that's in quotes. It's an example of someone trying to discredit someone's opinion by looking for ridiculous specifics. We can move that example to the design of the battery, which can include its chemical composition but let's ignore that aspect. I've read that it was too large, but how? Too tall? Too wide? Too thick? Even if you get some sort of specific answer to that question you have to know by how much. Then you have the chips that control how the battery. Perhaps it was an impurity in the construction of the battery (which may also have affected Apple batteries in many stories). Could the battery have been punctured? Dendrites may have formed for a variety or reasons, a micro puncture could have occurred which eventually let moisture in. Perhaps that's what caused the recent AirPod issue we saw in the news. Unfortunately, batteries are one of the hardest things to test for in the longterm, yet are one of the most dangerous, but how a material reacts to common surfaces like a table or skin is pretty damn common. To claim that Apple can't be held responsible for any issues, but that Samsung and FitBit are is just asinine.
I mentioned this upthread, but maybe it’s worth repeating for the benefit of the folks still going on about how Apple should have tested for, anticipated, and corrected for this terrible problem but obviously didn’t.
HomePods have been in the wild for almost a week, now. Given the nature of the device and of people’s homes, there are already probably millions of the things sitting on wood surfaces. There has been much tempest and gnashing of teeth on the comment boards about HomePods leaving rings today. Still, with all that, a google image search turns up about three pictures of the phenomenon, and in one of those the ring is the wrong size. So if Apple made a big error, why are there only two pictures out there to show for it? Maybe there will be a flood of them by tomorrow (though at some point, industrial saboteurs will be faking them), but for now...
Wait so Apple didn't include the black micro fiber cloth that comes with almost every product?
Do they still do that? I haven't opened the "envelope" that contains the Apple logo stickers in countless years. If there are microfiber clothes in there that's a score for me since I have all my old device boxes.
Quick survey of boxes on my desk. iMac yes - Airpods No. Maybe start with the biggest box.
Nothing in my 2017 MBP or iPhone 7 Plus boxes. I didn't check my Apple TV 4K or HomePod boxes.
Is your microfiber large enough to cover the included keyboard when not in use? Did your come with a trackpad or mouse?
I mentioned this upthread, but maybe it’s worth repeating for the benefit of the folks still going on about how Apple should have tested for, anticipated, and corrected for this terrible problem but obviously didn’t.
HomePods have been in the wild for almost a week, now. Given the nature of the device and of people’s homes, there are already probably millions of the things sitting on wood surfaces. There has been much tempest and gnashing of teeth on the comment boards about HomePods leaving rings today. Still, with all that, a google image search turns up about three pictures of the phenomenon, and in one of those the ring is the wrong size. So if Apple made a big error, why are there only two pictures out there to show for it? Maybe there will be a flood of them by tomorrow (though at some point, industrial saboteurs will be faking them), but for now...
Pics or it didn’t happen.
No issues on my end, but it's been sitting on a wood table that is sealed with some sort of varnish, polyurethane, lacquer, or shellac that I can clean with a damp cloth and doesn't to be oiled in any way, so I wouldn't expect to have that issue. I did check, for its own sake, but there was nary a mark, as expected.
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
Anything that would prevent the ring from forming on surfaces commonly found where you'd place a small speaker. Do you honestly believe there's one right answer? It's like if I mentioned that Samsung dropped the ball on properly testing batteries that caused damage and you chimed back with "EXPLAIN ME TO THE EXACT CHEMICAL FORMUA FOR THE BATTERY THEY SHOULD'VE USED!1!" It's irreverent and you'd sound like a Samsung zealot if you said that… just as you sound like an Apple zealot because I said it's an oversight by Apple.
The Galaxy Note 7 battery fires were found to be due to some specific errors in the design and implementation of those batteries. “Chemical formula” is probably not the right question, but I think ultimately Samsung themselves were pretty specific in naming the issues that were at the root of that problem.
Unlike battery design and manufacturing that can and should be controlled to a point where there aren’t very many variables that haven’t been considered, it’s about impossible for a manufacturer to anticipate and eliminate all problems that could result from the wide variety of finishes and cleaning products that are used for home furniture. So your second sentence above kind of undermines the insistence in the first sentence. I think Apple probably did make the HomePod out of materials that won’t cause a ring “on surfaces commonly found where you’d place a small speaker.” It’s a much taller order to insist that they use materials that won’t interact in any way with any surface. Apple has a core principle of controlling variables within their products. It’s not really possible to control all the variables that exist outside but proximate to their products. Nobody can do that.
That doesn't affect my comment since that's in quotes. It's an example of someone trying to discredit someone's opinion by looking for ridiculous specifics. We can move that example to the design of the battery, which can include its chemical composition but let's ignore that aspect. I've read that it was too large, but how? Too tall? Too wide? Too thick? Even if you get some sort of specific answer to that question you have to know by how much. Then you have the chips that control how the battery. Perhaps it was an impurity in the construction of the battery (which may also have affected Apple batteries in many stories). Could the battery have been punctured? Dendrites may have formed for a variety or reasons, a micro puncture could have occurred which eventually let moisture in. Perhaps that's what caused the recent AirPod issue we saw in the news. Unfortunately, batteries are one of the hardest things to test for in the longterm, yet are one of the most dangerous, but how a material reacts to common surfaces like a table or skin is pretty damn common. To claim that Apple can't be held responsible for any issues, but that Samsung and FitBit are is just asinine.
See my comment right above. Nobody is claiming that Apple can’t be held responsible for any issues, but that Samsung and Fitbit are. I’m certainly not. Nonetheless, you and others seem to be up in arms about an issue that has not thus far been demonstrated to be widespread. Getting battery design right is a high stakes game, because of the fires and all, and Apple is just as on the hook for that as are any of the other manufacturers. So far, they’ve kept that issue largely at bay. Surface rings aren’t going to kill anyone, so the stakes are lower. Still, if it was a widespread issue, that could be a problem. So far, though, it does not appear to be, so maybe it would be o.k. to throttle back on the furor about it.
Put on a coaster, a mat or something that isolates it from your precious surface.
Exactly. How is a coaster or a doily, not a "easy and permanent solution"?
FTA: "But, other than elevating the HomePod very slightly using a thin non-skid surface, they offered no easy and permanent solution for those suffering from the problem"
You guys are so sensitive.
“Other than [doing something trivial and obvious] there is no trivial and obvious solution.” Yeah ok.
My parents had a Danish modern table that was oiled wood. You had to be careful how you cleaned it and what you put on it—because it was oiled wood! This isn’t Apple’s fault, it’s the owner of precious delicate furniture who doesn’t know how to care for their stuff.
On John Gruber’s site he says anyone who encounters this should be outraged. Why do I get the feeling this is going to turn into another gate? Even though at this point we don’t even know for sure what’s causing it, how many different surfaces it impacts or if it leaves a permanent mark or can be wiped clean. Obviously if it leaves a mark that can’t be wiped clean that’s a huge miss on Apple’s part. But we don’t know at this point if that’s the case or not.
those ATP boys sure do experience a lot of outrage. at least this time it’s not over keyboard key travel.
To be fair it’s a bit perplexing that Apple didn’t warn about this and include a disclaimer in the product packaging. Which would lead one to believe QA missed this. If they knew about it but chose not to disclose that’s just as bad. Still I don’t think it deserves to be a gate.
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
Anything that would prevent the ring from forming on surfaces commonly found where you'd place a small speaker. Do you honestly believe there's one right answer? It's like if I mentioned that Samsung dropped the ball on properly testing batteries that caused damage and you chimed back with "EXPLAIN ME TO THE EXACT CHEMICAL FORMUA FOR THE BATTERY THEY SHOULD'VE USED!1!" It's irreverent and you'd sound like a Samsung zealot if you said that… just as you sound like an Apple zealot because I said it's an oversight by Apple.
The Galaxy Note 7 battery fires were found to be due to some specific errors in the design and implementation of those batteries. “Chemical formula” is probably not the right question, but I think ultimately Samsung themselves were pretty specific in naming the issues that were at the root of that problem.
Unlike battery design and manufacturing that can and should be controlled to a point where there aren’t very many variables that haven’t been considered, it’s about impossible for a manufacturer to anticipate and eliminate all problems that could result from the wide variety of finishes and cleaning products that are used for home furniture. So your second sentence above kind of undermines the insistence in the first sentence. I think Apple probably did make the HomePod out of materials that won’t cause a ring “on surfaces commonly found where you’d place a small speaker.” It’s a much taller order to insist that they use materials that won’t interact in any way with any surface. Apple has a core principle of controlling variables within their products. It’s not really possible to control all the variables that exist outside but proximate to their products. Nobody can do that.
That doesn't affect my comment since that's in quotes. It's an example of someone trying to discredit someone's opinion by looking for ridiculous specifics. We can move that example to the design of the battery, which can include its chemical composition but let's ignore that aspect. I've read that it was too large, but how? Too tall? Too wide? Too thick? Even if you get some sort of specific answer to that question you have to know by how much. Then you have the chips that control how the battery. Perhaps it was an impurity in the construction of the battery (which may also have affected Apple batteries in many stories). Could the battery have been punctured? Dendrites may have formed for a variety or reasons, a micro puncture could have occurred which eventually let moisture in. Perhaps that's what caused the recent AirPod issue we saw in the news. Unfortunately, batteries are one of the hardest things to test for in the longterm, yet are one of the most dangerous, but how a material reacts to common surfaces like a table or skin is pretty damn common. To claim that Apple can't be held responsible for any issues, but that Samsung and FitBit are is just asinine.
See my comment right above. Nobody is claiming that Apple can’t be held responsible for any issues, but that Samsung and Fitbit are. I’m certainly not. Nonetheless, you and others seem to be up in arms about an issue that has not thus far been demonstrated to be widespread. Getting battery design right is a high stakes game, because of the fires and all, and Apple is just as on the hook for that as are any of the other manufacturers. So far, they’ve kept that issue largely at bay. Surface rings aren’t going to kill anyone, so the stakes are lower. Still, if it was a widespread issue, that could be a problem. So far, though, it does not appear to be, so maybe it would be o.k. to throttle back on the furor about it.
You can't apply "widespread" to this situation because it's not like the battery issue where x-percentage have a y-likelohood of catching fire under z-conditions. From what I've read, every HomePod will have the same result—not just a small percentage because of a production or component supply issue—if placed on a range of common wood surfaces. This is inline with FitBit's issue. I never had an issue a skin rash but for me to say it didn't happen to me so it's not a big deal would be ridiculous, just as its ridiculous to tell people it's their fault for putting it on any wood surface. This issue falls squarely on Apple's shoulders.
If you want to don't want to keep your HomePod on something that stands out you can use something simple, like packing tape. under the area that would touch the wood surface. This will keep the silicon from reacting with the oil residue without being unsightly or affecting its utility. Of course, there are countless other home remedies for this potential issue, but tape is the simplest and most common solution I could think of.
Comments
Soli said:You made mention of porosity, but it's an elastomer that could be foamed with the addition of some chemicals. Still, why would you want a foam when you could easily use the proper durometer that's readily available that would have the damping properties that you wanted?
So, you have an elastomeric surface that you want to coat with...teflon which is widely consider to be very resistant to almost all other chemicals?
It's just a specific formulation, and I'm quite aware that all materials aren't the same, and yet you haven't made mention of what alternate material is appropriate.
I also think it's an oversight by FitBit to not have tested how their plastic bands would react with some people with allergies, yet I don't recall you standing up for them and demanding that people explain exactly what the chemical formula they should use or how they're not at a fault simply because it didn't affect every person (i.e.: surface) in which the bands were placed. And, yet, they issued a recall with a full refund, as I recall.
PS: You make Apple look bad when blindly defend everything they do. One of Apple's biggest fanboys, John Gruber, even said this should've been caught and corrected.
Unlike battery design and manufacturing that can and should be controlled to a point where there aren’t very many variables that haven’t been considered, it’s about impossible for a manufacturer to anticipate and eliminate all problems that could result from the wide variety of finishes and cleaning products that are used for home furniture. So your second sentence above kind of undermines the insistence in the first sentence. I think Apple probably did make the HomePod out of materials that won’t cause a ring “on surfaces commonly found where you’d place a small speaker.” It’s a much taller order to insist that they use materials that won’t interact in any way with any surface. Apple has a core principle of controlling variables within their products. It’s not really possible to control all the variables that exist outside but proximate to their products. Nobody can do that.
http://education.seattlepi.com/chemical-makeup-sebum-3867.html
I'm always suspicious of correlation = causation, so I'll leave that to somebody else to decide in the case.
Maybe start with the biggest box.
I mentioned this upthread, but maybe it’s worth repeating for the benefit of the folks still going on about how Apple should have tested for, anticipated, and corrected for this terrible problem but obviously didn’t.
HomePods have been in the wild for almost a week, now. Given the nature of the device and of people’s homes, there are already probably millions of the things sitting on wood surfaces. There has been much tempest and gnashing of teeth on the comment boards about HomePods leaving rings today. Still, with all that, a google image search turns up about three pictures of the phenomenon, and in one of those the ring is the wrong size. So if Apple made a big error, why are there only two pictures out there to show for it? Maybe there will be a flood of them by tomorrow (though at some point, industrial saboteurs will be faking them), but for now...
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Is your microfiber large enough to cover the included keyboard when not in use? Did your come with a trackpad or mouse?
“Other than [doing something trivial and obvious] there is no trivial and obvious solution.” Yeah ok.