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.
Don’t you barbarians use coasters?
You use coasters for everything? You put magazines on coasters? Your cable box on coasters? I think most people just stick to beverages.
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.
If you have special oiled wood I think the onus of care is on you as the owner. Others who own such pieces here say they’re familiar with devices leaving marks in their living finish and are familiar with care steps to prevent or restore.
For the record, my orange LaCie Rugged portable drive also leaves marks on my oil stained wood desk if sitting directly on the surface. When I'm copying files to it, I usually put in on top of something or on the iMac base. I guess if you don't own a lot of wood furniture, it can be alarming but it happens all the time. Also, the marks aren't permanent and they go away on their own or I'll polish it with Howard Feed n Wax.
Edit: Also, I forgot to mention my Airport Time Capsule, my Beoplay A1 speaker, my Bose Soundlink mini, my Swingline stapler. I could go on and on.
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
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.
If you have special oiled wood I think the onus of care is on you as the owner. Others who own such pieces here say they’re familiar with devices leaving marks in their living finish and are familiar with care steps to prevent or restore.
This isn’t Apple’s problem.
I agree. I'm a little surprised by the hysteria about this. It's probably a shock for some if they've never experienced it before with other items. Really, though. This is a common occurrence with certain wood furniture and finishes. Should Apple really be responsible for warning people in advance? I think not. But that's just me.
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
As previously stated, "HomePod will have the same result if placed on a range of common wood surfaces." You trying to excuse Apple's shortcoming by saying that because not every customer will place their product on these surfaces is fanatical. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes into the doctor and says, "Doc, everything I do this it hurts" and the Doc replies,"then don't do that."
Bottom line: This shouldn’t be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
As previously stated, "HomePod will have the same result if placed on a range of common wood surfaces." You trying to excuse Apple's shortcoming by saying that because not every customer will place their product on these surfaces is fanatical. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes into the doctor and says, "Doc, everything I do this it hurts" and the Doc replies,"then don't do that."
Bottom line: This should be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
Ok. I have other things to do with my life. You have fun.
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
As previously stated, "HomePod will have the same result if placed on a range of common wood surfaces." You trying to excuse Apple's shortcoming by saying that because not every customer will place their product on these surfaces is fanatical. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes into the doctor and says, "Doc, everything I do this it hurts" and the Doc replies,"then don't do that."
Bottom line: This should be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
Ok. I have other things to do with my life. You have fun.
Soli has been unhappy since his HomePod arrived.
He's inconsolable that it isn't what he imagined, and then this.
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.
If you have special oiled wood I think the onus of care is on you as the owner. Others who own such pieces here say they’re familiar with devices leaving marks in their living finish and are familiar with care steps to prevent or restore.
This isn’t Apple’s problem.
If Apple knows that this silicon could cause stain issues then it’s something they should warn people about. Just like when they warned that the jet black iPhone 7 could be susceptible to micro-abrasions/minor scratches.
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
As previously stated, "HomePod will have the same result if placed on a range of common wood surfaces." You trying to excuse Apple's shortcoming by saying that because not every customer will place their product on these surfaces is fanatical. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes into the doctor and says, "Doc, everything I do this it hurts" and the Doc replies,"then don't do that."
Bottom line: This should be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
Ok. I have other things to do with my life. You have fun.
Soli has been unhappy since his HomePod arrived.
He's inconsolable that it isn't what he imagined, and then this.
Pretty funny actually.
It’s actually better than I imagined, with several aspects considereably more impressive to the point of me describing them as magical (as I’ve repeatedly stated in great detail).
If you only latched onto the less than glowing remarks I made about HomePod then that’s something you need to deal with; and I hope you do, because it’s that fantastical mindset that drives potential Apple customers to lesser devices without ever giving Apple products a chance.
Have you even acknowledged that Apple has admitted that HomePod can affect certain types of common wood surfaces?
A common problem for many decades. Only becomes an “actual” problem when it has an Apple logo on it, apparently.
Blaming the customer isn’t such a great idea. Or assuming that everyone should know that the base of HomePod will leave a mark on certain furniture. Because we all majored in chemistry. Rene Ritchie is as pro-Apple as they come and even he says this should have been caught and communicated. Seriously how difficult would it have been to add a disclaimer?
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.
If you have special oiled wood I think the onus of care is on you as the owner. Others who own such pieces here say they’re familiar with devices leaving marks in their living finish and are familiar with care steps to prevent or restore.
This isn’t Apple’s problem.
I agree. I'm a little surprised by the hysteria about this. It's probably a shock for some if they've never experienced it before with other items. Really, though. This is a common occurrence with certain wood furniture and finishes. Should Apple really be responsible for warning people in advance? I think not. But that's just me.
One could argue the same about micro-abrasions with the jet black iPhone yet Apple did warn about that.
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
As previously stated, "HomePod will have the same result if placed on a range of common wood surfaces." You trying to excuse Apple's shortcoming by saying that because not every customer will place their product on these surfaces is fanatical. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes into the doctor and says, "Doc, everything I do this it hurts" and the Doc replies,"then don't do that."
Bottom line: This shouldn’t be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
Oh dear lord. Nobody complained when it was the cuisine art feet or the airport feet. but now that it’s an Echo competitor you are “concerned”. You like Echo, the ultimate gizmo for ordering more toilet paper from amazon, we get it.
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
As previously stated, "HomePod will have the same result if placed on a range of common wood surfaces." You trying to excuse Apple's shortcoming by saying that because not every customer will place their product on these surfaces is fanatical. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes into the doctor and says, "Doc, everything I do this it hurts" and the Doc replies,"then don't do that."
Bottom line: This shouldn’t be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
Oh dear lord. Nobody complained when it was the cuisine art feet or the airport feet. but now that it’s an Echo competitor you are “concerned”. You like Echo, the ultimate gizmo for ordering more toilet paper from amazon, we get it.
1) Any reasonable argument you may have had dissolves every time you make that same ridiculous statement. You sound just like the trolls that come here to claim the iPhone is a toy because it doesn't give you root access to the file system.
2) "Cuisine art feet" :facepalm:
3) I'm purchased and analyzed both Echo and HomePod products, and have given many pros and cons of their abilities, as well as how each can be ideal for certain situations, yet you feel that I should have no voice in the matter because I've used an Apple competitor. How the hell does that sound reasonable to you? How many of these products have you tested?
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.
If you have special oiled wood I think the onus of care is on you as the owner. Others who own such pieces here say they’re familiar with devices leaving marks in their living finish and are familiar with care steps to prevent or restore.
This isn’t Apple’s problem.
If Apple knows that this silicon could cause stain issues then it’s something they should warn people about. Just like when they warned that the jet black iPhone 7 could be susceptible to micro-abrasions/minor scratches.
That’s the world damaging the apple product. This is an apple product possibly triggering natural, minor, temporal damage in the world. Not the same. Backwards. If you own a piece with a “living finish”, the onus is on you to protect it from the world.
However I’m betting you’d never even heard of a living finish before. I have. My sink is copper, and you’d better believe all sorts of household products and items produce wear on it depending on their base or acidity. Yet do I expect warnings and labels from them? Nope that would be absurd.
You guys try so hard to make everything a matter of what apple did wrong, it’s precious. “10” for your mental gymnastics. Now go for the dismount and stick the landing!
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.
Oh, good grief. You are incorrect when you say “...every HomePod will have the same result...” Every HomePod is made of the same materials, yes. Not every wood surface in a home is made of the same materials. The HomePod leaves a ring only on certain materials, not every wood surface. Therefore, every HomePod will not have the same result. It appears, based on a distinct lack of photographic evidence, that very few people who have HomePods have placed them on surfaces that are made of materials that react with the HomePod’s materials. The issue is therefore, by friggin’ definition, not widespread. This is not hard. Let it go.
As previously stated, "HomePod will have the same result if placed on a range of common wood surfaces." You trying to excuse Apple's shortcoming by saying that because not every customer will place their product on these surfaces is fanatical. It reminds me of the old joke where a guy goes into the doctor and says, "Doc, everything I do this it hurts" and the Doc replies,"then don't do that."
Bottom line: This should be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
Ok. I have other things to do with my life. You have fun.
Soli has been unhappy since his HomePod arrived.
He's inconsolable that it isn't what he imagined, and then this.
Pretty funny actually.
It’s actually better than I imagined, with several aspects considereably more impressive to the point of me describing them as magical (as I’ve repeatedly stated in great detail).
If you only latched onto the less than glowing remarks I made about HomePod then that’s something you need to deal with; and I hope you do, because it’s that fantastical mindset that drives potential Apple customers to lesser devices without ever giving Apple products a chance.
Have you even acknowledged that Apple has admitted that HomePod can affect certain types of common wood surfaces?
Below is a duplicate of my very first statement in this thread;
"I'm thinking that silicone oil in polishing/cleaning products is the villain.
Unless we hear otherwise, I doubt that this problem correlates with traditional finishing oils. I hope that is true in the long term".
That's acknowledgement that there is an issue with the HomePod silicone base, but only in limited circumstances, so no, it isn't going to involve even a small fraction of users.
Obviously I'm aware that Apple has acknowledged the same issue, so I guess, by definition, I have self acknowledged that fact?
I only recall your very first statements, which to say the least, were petulant, and what's this about a fantastical mindset? Do you want to clarify that as if makes no sense to me.
By the way, I don't buy a bit of your bullshit material science thing. You came across as way too fucking vague, and were unable to provide even a single alternative to the use of silicone, and were seemingly unaware that silicone, an elastomer, is available in a wide variety of durometers, which is a measure hardness, without being an open or closed cell foam.
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.
If you have special oiled wood I think the onus of care is on you as the owner. Others who own such pieces here say they’re familiar with devices leaving marks in their living finish and are familiar with care steps to prevent or restore.
This isn’t Apple’s problem.
If Apple knows that this silicon could cause stain issues then it’s something they should warn people about. Just like when they warned that the jet black iPhone 7 could be susceptible to micro-abrasions/minor scratches.
People that have those kind of things know those things, they're finicky. That's why I don't have them anymore, only tough finishes, I've ruined them through my own negligence.
Comments
So how is that going?
This isn’t Apple’s problem.
Edit:
Also, I forgot to mention my Airport Time Capsule, my Beoplay A1 speaker, my Bose Soundlink mini, my Swingline stapler. I could go on and on.
Bottom line: This shouldn’t be happening on any common surfaces and this has a simple and cheap resolution.
He's inconsolable that it isn't what he imagined, and then this.
Pretty funny actually.
If you only latched onto the less than glowing remarks I made about HomePod then that’s something you need to deal with; and I hope you do, because it’s that fantastical mindset that drives potential Apple customers to lesser devices without ever giving Apple products a chance.
Have you even acknowledged that Apple has admitted that HomePod can affect certain types of common wood surfaces?
One could argue the same about micro-abrasions with the jet black iPhone yet Apple did warn about that.
2) "Cuisine art feet" :facepalm:
3) I'm purchased and analyzed both Echo and HomePod products, and have given many pros and cons of their abilities, as well as how each can be ideal for certain situations, yet you feel that I should have no voice in the matter because I've used an Apple competitor. How the hell does that sound reasonable to you? How many of these products have you tested?
That’s the world damaging the apple product. This is an apple product possibly triggering natural, minor, temporal damage in the world. Not the same. Backwards. If you own a piece with a “living finish”, the onus is on you to protect it from the world.
However I’m betting you’d never even heard of a living finish before. I have. My sink is copper, and you’d better believe all sorts of household products and items produce wear on it depending on their base or acidity. Yet do I expect warnings and labels from them? Nope that would be absurd.
You guys try so hard to make everything a matter of what apple did wrong, it’s precious. “10” for your mental gymnastics. Now go for the dismount and stick the landing!
"I'm thinking that silicone oil in polishing/cleaning products is the villain.
Unless we hear otherwise, I doubt that this problem correlates with traditional finishing oils. I hope that is true in the long term".
That's acknowledgement that there is an issue with the HomePod silicone base, but only in limited circumstances, so no, it isn't going to involve even a small fraction of users.
Obviously I'm aware that Apple has acknowledged the same issue, so I guess, by definition, I have self acknowledged that fact?
I only recall your very first statements, which to say the least, were petulant, and what's this about a fantastical mindset? Do you want to clarify that as if makes no sense to me.
By the way, I don't buy a bit of your bullshit material science thing. You came across as way too fucking vague, and were unable to provide even a single alternative to the use of silicone, and were seemingly unaware that silicone, an elastomer, is available in a wide variety of durometers, which is a measure hardness, without being an open or closed cell foam.
I provided a link so you can learns something:
https://www.smooth-on.com/page/durometer-shore-hardness-scale/
I'd guess that Apple is using something like Shore A 80 durometer silicone, since they don't want it visible dancing like a bobblehead toy.