What is so odd to me, is that it is kind of a no-brainer and certainly not expensive to add.
I'm amazed that anyone still thinks that the exclusion of any kind of "audio in" has anything at all to do with the cost of the component, or in fact any engineering factor. With the premium prices Apple charges? No way.
It's sole purpose is to restrict the speaker's use to Apple products so as to encourage the sale of those other Apple products. It's a simple as that. Why on earth would Apple want to encourage people to use another company's products?
But because the HomePod line, an accessory, is really only attractive to people who have already invested in the Apple ecosystem, it's not that big a deal, because those people don't want to use other people's products. This is different from a foundational product like the Apple TV, Mac, or iPhone, in that those users have a wide array of non-Apple products that they are going to want to use. Can you imagine if Apple restricted the iPhone to only using AirPods products? Or an Apple TV couldn't be connected to a receiver? Or a Mac could only use Apple monitors?
beowulfschmidt said: I'm amazed that anyone still thinks that the exclusion of any kind of "audio in" has anything at all to do with the cost of the component, or in fact any engineering factor. With the premium prices Apple charges? No way.
It's sole purpose is to restrict the speaker's use to Apple products so as to encourage the sale of those other Apple products. It's a simple as that. Why on earth would Apple want to encourage people to use another company's products?
But because the HomePod line, an accessory, is really only attractive to people who have already invested in the Apple ecosystem, it's not that big a deal, because those people don't want to use other people's products. This is different from a foundational product like the Apple TV, Mac, or iPhone, in that those users have a wide array of non-Apple products that they are going to want to use. Can you imagine if Apple restricted the iPhone to only using AirPods products? Or an Apple TV couldn't be connected to a receiver? Or a Mac could only use Apple monitors?
Agreed, though to me, that just makes it all the worse. They are purposely limiting a great hardware product, to try and push more income of their services. (Will ‘services’ be the ultimate undoing of Apple?)
But, if that were completely the case, why did the include audio-in on the AirPods Max? My hunch is that it is a combination of wanting to limit the HomePods to Apple services, but maybe even stronger, their conception of what a ‘smart speaker’ is and is for. I suppose smart-speakers don’t tend to have audio-in? I’m probably just not the target market in terms of I could care less about the smart-speaker aspect, I just want a great sounding speaker that is smart about tuning to the environment, etc. I might even consider it NOT having Siri a feature I’d pay for. LOL
beowulfschmidt said: I'm amazed that anyone still thinks that the exclusion of any kind of "audio in" has anything at all to do with the cost of the component, or in fact any engineering factor. With the premium prices Apple charges? No way.
It's sole purpose is to restrict the speaker's use to Apple products so as to encourage the sale of those other Apple products. It's a simple as that. Why on earth would Apple want to encourage people to use another company's products?
But because the HomePod line, an accessory, is really only attractive to people who have already invested in the Apple ecosystem, it's not that big a deal, because those people don't want to use other people's products. This is different from a foundational product like the Apple TV, Mac, or iPhone, in that those users have a wide array of non-Apple products that they are going to want to use. Can you imagine if Apple restricted the iPhone to only using AirPods products? Or an Apple TV couldn't be connected to a receiver? Or a Mac could only use Apple monitors?
Agreed, though to me, that just makes it all the worse. They are purposely limiting a great hardware product, to try and push more income of their services. (Will ‘services’ be the ultimate undoing of Apple?)
But, if that were completely the case, why did the include audio-in on the AirPods Max? My hunch is that it is a combination of wanting to limit the HomePods to Apple services, but maybe even stronger, their conception of what a ‘smart speaker’ is and is for. I suppose smart-speakers don’t tend to have audio-in? I’m probably just not the target market in terms of I could care less about the smart-speaker aspect, I just want a great sounding speaker that is smart about tuning to the environment, etc. I might even consider it NOT having Siri a feature I’d pay for. LOL
Assuming you have a lightning to 3.5mm cable (sold separately, at additional cost), that is. I don't think "services" per se is a problem, it's currently the best way to ensure constant revenue, which is what shareholders want.
But I'm in the same boat as you not being the target market for these. Yes, I have iPhones, and I have an Apple TV, along with a few HomeKit devices, but I'm not interested (anymore) in any kind of "smart" speaker. My one experience with a HomePod Mini was lukewarm. I thought it might be worth one or two, but the problems I had with it (even aside from its inability to connect with anything non-Apple, which I knew beforehand) convinced me not to bother. Not to say it isn't a cool device, it is, just not for me.
beowulfschmidt said: Assuming you have a lightning to 3.5mm cable (sold separately, at additional cost), that is. I don't think "services" per se is a problem, it's currently the best way to ensure constant revenue, which is what shareholders want.
I have one in my car, but I’d certainly get another (3.5mm to Lightning). As noted previously, streaming doesn’t work for real-time stuff, like gaming or playing my guitar/keyboard. Line-in is a must for me, whether it be speakers or headphones (for those purposes).
My problem with services, is that I feel Apple is trading values, integrity, and even getting into advertising (even in their OSs and UIs), in order to increase services revenue. As that department grows, they’ll gain more power as they become a bigger piece of the pie. This kind of thing has ruined many companies. At the end of the day, a company’s success is about more than dollars.
Comments
But, if that were completely the case, why did the include audio-in on the AirPods Max? My hunch is that it is a combination of wanting to limit the HomePods to Apple services, but maybe even stronger, their conception of what a ‘smart speaker’ is and is for. I suppose smart-speakers don’t tend to have audio-in? I’m probably just not the target market in terms of I could care less about the smart-speaker aspect, I just want a great sounding speaker that is smart about tuning to the environment, etc. I might even consider it NOT having Siri a feature I’d pay for. LOL
My problem with services, is that I feel Apple is trading values, integrity, and even getting into advertising (even in their OSs and UIs), in order to increase services revenue. As that department grows, they’ll gain more power as they become a bigger piece of the pie. This kind of thing has ruined many companies. At the end of the day, a company’s success is about more than dollars.