Apple announces iPod Hi-Fi boombox

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 184
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    His reply is one I agree with.



    "Good engineering costs no more than bad engineering."




    I doubt that. Bad engineering can cost more than good engineering. Good engineering can cost more than bad engineering.
  • Reply 62 of 184
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    I doubt that. Bad engineering can cost more than good engineering. Good engineering can cost more than bad engineering.



    I second that.



    I like to think that I am a good engineer.



    I can design a Power Amp for about £20, and another that costs £400 (parts costs). Most people wouldn't be able to hear the difference between them, but the £400 one would have significantly higher/better measurable performance.
  • Reply 63 of 184
    macgregormacgregor Posts: 1,434member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    I doubt that. Bad engineering can cost more than good engineering. Good engineering can cost more than bad engineering.



    Yeah, just ask the citizens of New Orleans.
  • Reply 64 of 184
    I posted this on the TS discussion and I think it applies here as well:



    I'd like to respectfully bring a different perspective to the iPod Hi-Fi discussion. As a teenager living in the "iPod generation", I think I'm kinda in the target market on this thing. I agree, most adults will opt for a higher quality home system. And honestly speaking, I think it's largely because you're not adverse to sitting on the couch without many other people around to listen to your music.



    For my generation music is a social experience. We want to share our music. We want to take our music with us. We have different needs.



    I have a decent stereo system that I have used with my iPod for a couple of years. I lug it around the house, bring it to bonfires, and take it to camp. I connect up my iPod, or those of my friends with a stereo input or a FM transmitter. It works fine. The big problem for me is, it's not wireless. I have to plug it into a wall, which means my music becomes less like a social experience and more like background noise.



    For my demographic, the iPod Hi-Fi is a perfect product. I don't want CDs, I don't want a tuner, and I don't want a bulky multipart system with a mess of wires. The only improvement I would make to the iPod Hi-Fi would be intigrated AirTunes.



    And let's remember, we haven't heard it yet. I have a history of being pleasently surprised by Apple products.
  • Reply 65 of 184
    macgregormacgregor Posts: 1,434member
    I do agree that this was too niche for a "special event." Again, FrontRow/Bonjour should have been the big story. Then showing the wealth of periferals that could be made to fit into FR and Bonjour would have been good. Announcing that FR was to become a standard that others could add to would have been real news. Describing partnerships with Elgato and others that they could put their media on a "TV" icon or Movie icon on the FR mainscreen would have been awesome news!



    Boombox is fine. It will look cool in the Apple store - the real reason for the form - and it will make them some money while making an easy buy for parents of kids going to college.
  • Reply 66 of 184
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    What's happening? Is the sky falling in? Am I going mad? I find I am agreeing with everything Melgross says these days.
  • Reply 67 of 184
    Hmm, drop the ppcs and apple is forced to find a new way to make underpowered hardware. Nice touch that they mention the power output in a non-comparable unit. Real up-front and honest marketing. Even the battery life and current draw are hidden, so you can't infer a maximum. I'm sure the quality is off the scale, and the price is great value, and there's more futuristic white plastic than a Kubric movie, but 50p says my xserve g5 is louder.
  • Reply 68 of 184
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Jeez, It'll sound great, it looks great, its fairly priced in relation to the equivalent competition. It may or may not sell; I have no gut feeling for it at present but its an area that Apple needs to slide into... carefully and with quality product.
  • Reply 69 of 184
    No radio is nuckin' futs at this price level. This is supposed to compete with the Bose wavestation?... Koo koo ka choo, Mrs. Robinson? Not in my backyard!
  • Reply 70 of 184
    umijinumijin Posts: 133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AgNuke1707

    A few things...

    Who uses speakers to play music at home? Oh man, lemme tell you, I love listening to my music through computer speakers. Lots of people. A dizzying amount of people actually. We moved a lot of those suckers in retail over the holidays, and most of them were the $200+ Kensingtons, Bose or JBL set-ups.





    Nope - I didn't say THAT. I said 'who uses their iPod to play music at home if they already have a computer'? What most Mac people do is play their music through their COMPUTER to attached speakers or via AirportExpress to attached speakers. And there are lots of good less-expensive speakers out there for this.



    Yeah, sure some folks use their iPods for home music, but iPods are portable and people buying speakers for them likely want something portable. Heck, I have a set of iPod speakers - but they are small and for on-the-road use.



    Quote:



    All-in-all, Apple didn't set out to reinvent the wheel on this. All they did was take a concept 3rd party companies have been using (Home iPod Speaker Docking stations) and do it themselves. Utterly bad may be too harsh for a product that has just been released. You might want to wait and see how it sells, or even better, go take a listen for yourself. The Bose doesn't have any of the features you listed and yet it sells EXTREMELY well.




    No-no-no - you miss the point. Apple has to do something DIFFERENT or BETTER in order to make this product worthwhile. They haven't. This thing doesn't really have anything very "Apple" about it - other than the price.



    And given the bitrate of most digital music, even the best speaker won't do jack for your iPod Audio output.
  • Reply 71 of 184
    umijinumijin Posts: 133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Faasnat

    Very good points.



    This doesn't look like something you'd take to the beach or on a picnic. If it's mainly going to be used in the home, why not just have a wifi "boombox" that streams from your computer w/ iTunes?




    Actually I already DO - with my JBL Creatures ;-P



    See, you don't need the iPodHiFi to do this. And I can already control (sort of) iTunes with my Apple Remote via my Computer.



    And yeah, I concede that 17lbs is too big to use as a boom box.
  • Reply 72 of 184
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sharp_spot

    Apple's greatest misses:



    ? Flower Power iMac

    ? iPod socks

    ? iTunes ROKr phone (admittedly a Motorola product)

    ? Integrated Mac mini graphics



    ? iPod Hi-Fi



    To sell it that $350 price point for a "dock with speakers" they'll need to add Mickey Mouse ears to it. With Steve on the board, I'm sure Disney would be down for that.




    i'm sure someone has said this already, but i'm just not interested in these new products enough to read every page in this thread...BUT, have you ever heard of the PowerMac G4 Cube??
  • Reply 73 of 184
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    This is something I canno see myself spending a dime on.



    I mean this doesn't even have a screen! How am I supposed to control this from across the room? I don't have falcon eyes to zoom in on my ipod screen! It's also kinda nice but kinda clunky.



    What I think they should have done is make the same thing but find a way to put an OLED screen in the middle of it that way when it's off it looks black like the speaker grill and build the speaker seemlessly around that.



    Now THAT would be ill.
  • Reply 74 of 184
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    It shouldn't be compared to $100 devices. It should be compared to devices that cost about the same, or possibly even higher.



    A $100 boombox can't even begin to have proper sound quality. That doesn't mean that the people buying them won't enjoy them. I'm not saying that they shouldn't either.



    But, this is not meant to compete with those units.



    If you buy a $350 pair of speakers, you'll notice that they rarely are good at all. But a very few models are fine. They have specs that are no better than this unit does, and usually worse. Then you need an amp to power them.




    The biggest problem with cheap small playback systems like the iBoom is 2 way design that uses HORRIBLE crossovers. I'll take a good sounding full range speaker that starts to taper off at 16k with a (mini) sub to support it over a harsh, phasey, nasty crossover sitting bewteen a 2.5" speaker and a tiny, cheap metal dome tweeter.



    If this thing can really thump with better than average transient response and sounds smooth in the high end, it will sound good. You won't miss the extended range. That extra 4k isn't that much; less than 1/2 an octave. Can you hear your CRT tube television whining at nearly 16k?



    I've always been terribly unimpressed with the travel/desktop sized iPod speaker systems at the Apple Store. The sound lousy, distort easily, and are overpriced. This box from Apple has a chance to stand out amongst the offerings in the store. I won't buy it, but some surely will.



    gc
  • Reply 75 of 184
    Quote:

    Originally posted by vinney57

    You make no sense Mr 9 posts. Are you drunk?



    Ouch. Personal attack. Nasty. But since you want to understand, I'll explain the humour.



    Quote:

    Hmm, drop the ppcs and apple is forced to find a new way to make underpowered hardware.



    The PowerPC based power macs were not very fast (underpowered). The power output is not mentioned on the ipod hi-fi. Being powered by 6 D size batteries, it cannot be up there with a modest home stereo. Physics won't allow it. Therefore it is underpowered.

    The sentence was a double entendre. A form of humour.



    Quote:

    Nice touch that they mention the power output in a non-comparable unit. Real up-front and honest marketing.



    This remark infers that apple deliberately obfuscates the issue of power output in their technical specs by use of the 'Peak Sound Pressure Level'. Everyone in a reputible hi-fi outlet will at least let you know output in RMS Watts. Peak measures are also dishonest, as it does not take into account distortion.

    These sentences were sarcasm. The lowest from of humour.



    Quote:

    Even the battery life and current draw are hidden, so you can't infer a maximum.



    This is the scientist in me. Power output cannot be greater than power input, therefore one could work out a ballpark maximum power output figure by working out the amount of power used. It wouldn't be much, because even D cells cannot deliver much current.

    This sentence wasn't humour.



    Quote:

    I'm sure the quality is off the scale, and the price is great value, and there's more futuristic white plastic than a Kubric movie, but 50p says my xserve g5 is louder.



    Joke after joke. The traditional apple user's forum reply to an assertion of apple gear being underpowered is 'the quality makes it great value'. The white plastic comment is a metaphor for the cheesy designs of the product. The last bit is sardonicism mixed with irony. My xserve g5 is very loud, and shouldn't be. The hi-fi should be loud, but won't be.



    The underlying theme of all this is that, as loyal apple users, we should speak up when they make a crap product, rather than try and justify their existence. Apple after all, is just a big corporation out to make money for it's shareholders. It doesn't exist to make 'the best hardware/software/hi-fi...', and often it doesn't.



    Does it make any sense with an explanation, or would you rather another childish personal attack? (Wow, that's passive-aggressive. That's childish too. )
  • Reply 76 of 184
    Is anyone else here frustrated that we have thousands of songs on our computers, but only limited ways to use them elsewhere? I don't want to buy an expensive new box to listen to my iPod (with its limited-cycle battery) when I already have a super iPod (my iMac) and a really nice, bazillion dollar boombox (my home theater system, with its Bose surround sound system, etc.). Why should I replicate what I've already got, and in an inferior form? (All due respect to the new boombox. I'm sure it sounds great.)



    But my iMac is in my third floor office.



    And my home theater system is in the living room on the first floor.



    Airport Express requires me to have them in the same room, or on the same floor, to make it practical to change songs, switch playlists, etc. Right? Even with an infrared extension. Otherwise I'm running up and down the stairs every time I want to hear something else. I could buy a PowerBook or an iBook or a Mini and keep it downstairs. But that's a lot of moolah for a remote control.



    I could buy a Sonos system, or, for less $$$, a Squeezebox, and stream my music from third floor to first. Except that my DRM songs from the ITunes store won't be part of the stream, since neither the Sonos nor the Squeezebox is licensed to handle Apple's DRM tunes. Unless I burn all the DRM tunes to disc and them rip them back without, I assume, the DRM. But of course I would never do that. Tsk tsk.



    Unless I'm missing something -- entirely possible -- there's a perfect niche here for Apple to fill. Why they haven't done that is a mystery to me. I presume it's a future product release.



    Meanwhile, I'm hooked on having all my music on the computer, and on my iPods. My old 300-CD changer goes unused. I figure I'll buy a Squeezebox and stream all my music, minus the DRM stuff, to my home theater system. And quit buying iTunes DRM songs. I could try Rhapsody or some similar scheme. Nice idea, but ... there's something about renting songs that just seems odd. Maybe I should move into the 21st Century on this, but I hate the idea that if the company and I ever part ways, they take my music collection with them.



    Surely I'm missing something. Is there some simple way to stream everything on my iMac to my hifi when they're on separate floors?
  • Reply 77 of 184
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tag Me Back

    Power output cannot be greater than power input, therefore one could work out a ballpark maximum power output figure by working out the amount of power used.



    ~120W.
  • Reply 78 of 184
    Why does Apple always see the need to overprice things by $50-100? i like the concept but they really could have pushed the tech and at least offered a model with integrated airport . so now, if you want to put one in every room, you have to spend $350 plus another $130 on the airport?

    and the sleek look is nice but seems to lose out on the simple functionality they really should have worked in...like some kind of LED readout showing volume level. an lcd screen would have been nice but i guess not imperitive. whereas in the past apple made you feel like you were getting the latest in innovation at a modest increase in price over the competition, now i just start feeling like the are gouging people because they can...and for products that give up certain functionality that really should be there. i love apple as much as the next but does anyone agree?
  • Reply 79 of 184
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macfly

    Why does Apple always see the need to overprice things by $50-100? i like the concept but they really could have pushed the tech and at least offered a model with integrated airport . so now, if you want to put one in every room, you have to spend $350 plus another $130 on the airport?

    and the sleek look is nice but seems to lose out on the simple functionality they really should have worked in...like some kind of LED readout showing volume level. an lcd screen would have been nice but i guess not imperitive. whereas in the past apple made you feel like you were getting the latest in innovation at a modest increase in price over the competition, now i just start feeling like the are gouging people because they can...and for products that give up certain functionality that really should be there. i love apple as much as the next but does anyone agree?




    not on a wholesale basis, but I tend to agree. It's part of the whole industrial design mantra that I both love and hate.
  • Reply 80 of 184
    synosyno Posts: 33member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macfly

    Why does Apple always see the need to overprice things by $50-100? i like the concept but they really could have pushed the tech and at least offered a model with integrated airport . so now, if you want to put one in every room, you have to spend $350 plus another $130 on the airport?

    and the sleek look is nice but seems to lose out on the simple functionality they really should have worked in...like some kind of LED readout showing volume level. an lcd screen would have been nice but i guess not imperitive. whereas in the past apple made you feel like you were getting the latest in innovation at a modest increase in price over the competition, now i just start feeling like the are gouging people because they can...and for products that give up certain functionality that really should be there. i love apple as much as the next but does anyone agree?




    Gouging because they can? if people don't want it they wont buy it.
Sign In or Register to comment.