jSnively

We're pulling this story and closing this thread. Apologies to everyone, we got some editorial wires crossed.

rcfa said:

When I read “loud” and “booming” I’m disheartened, might as well describe it as Ghettoblaster.

What I was hoping to read is detailed imaging, powerful, effortless, clean, well controlled sound with depth and proper imaging.

There is notably nothing written about combining two or more into a stereo or surround setup, neither anything about using the built-in Bluetooth to hook up computers, phones, video projectors, etc. which are capable of using BT speakers or hands free devices.

Disappointing, not just that these capabilities are lacking, but also that similarly lacking is a roadmap of features to be added by future software updates.

So here's my takeaway so far. Please be advised I've had mine for about an hour.

It sounds alright for its size. VERY heavy on the highs, and the crossover frequency for woofer seems problematic as well. Bass is good for a 4" woofer, but will sound shallow to people who are used to more robust offerings. This feels like it was EQ'd by Beats. Mids get completely drowned when there's a lot going on. Listening to one of the fuller parts of Zero 7 - Home i literally winced because it sounded so bad. I'm not doing the review for this, but i figure i'd let you guys know what i think so far.

I think it's the sound king of the smart speakers, but that's not exactly a prestigious title.

randominternetperson said:

jSnively said:

haitiansonny said:

I've been an AppleInsider reader since 2005. I've found the articles posted informative, arguments clearly posed, and an insight and fairness not expected of a website that focuses primarily about the goings on of Apple, Inc. I follow certain topics and one among them is how/if Apple keeps to its' integrity or ethical behavior. Looking at the Editorial article about the initial App rejection: 1) Did Apple impliciitly/explicitly point to the article about jailbreaking? 2) App approval can be known to be far from a transparent process. During the approval process did anyone reach out to Apple? 2a) If they did, what did they say? (-Knowing that I believe there were no instances when Apple would not give any reason at all). I would like to know Apple extent of behavior concerning putting pressure on developers and other entities. The article pointing to 'App Rejection Due to an Article' stated that plainly.

1) Explicitly. We were told it was because of the article, then later told it was a mistake. We don't know for sure it was human or not, but it was most likely a human error given the explanation we received.

2) Of course. Things lined up in such a way that it made sense for us to publish.
    2a) Not going to say. I will say that if we had no publication power we'd still be stuck in limbo.

At the end of the day, this cost us money and time. Most app developers don't have a website they can publish on to get things moving, and that's something worth highlighting. We're happy with the turnaround speed.

That's not my experience.  I had an app rejected once and the reason given was specific, but in my opinion incorrect.  I made an official complaint/escalation and within a few days the app was approved.  I'm the smallest of the small fish and didn't make any sort of public appeal.  I am certain that the mistaken rejection of the latest AI app update would have readily and quickly corrected by following the normal channels.  I'm not buying the "if it weren't for our bully pulpit, Apple would have done us wrong" angle.  I'm sure the publicity didn't hurt you, but it might not have actually helped, and I certainly don't think it was required.

Given our position as a publication, and how many developers we talk to about this exact sort of thing ... do you think it's maybe possible that we have a little more of a solid idea of the realities on this one? You're entitled to your opinion, but maybe consider your sample size.

tallest skil said:

[...]

Correct; the classification difference between Title I and Title II (requiring broadcast licenses). Equality of bits is fully capable of being enforced without BL regulation over ISPs.

The Verizon lawsuit empirically proved that it's not -- at least not via the FCC. I posted this in another thread, but the easiest fix to the problem as a whole is to regulate under title II so the FCC has all the power it needs to do everything it needs.That absolutely comes with some baggage, yes. And while Title II isn't the technically correct answer, the "technically correct" fix is rife with enough additional problems and complexities it makes it not only a worse overall solution, but also almost completely politically unfeasible.

The FTC does what it can where it can, but it doesn't have the power to address all of the concerns. The way that it defines and enforces 'unfairness', for example, would still allow telecommunication companies to create fast and slow lanes, as well as selectively block services so long as they are counter-balanced with other 'benefits'. That is not equality of bits. The FTC is not equipped to govern a 'fair' internet. They are more than happy to tell you that they are, because that means more potential funding and expanded powers for them, but it's not the truth. It's a mess. Governing everything under Title II by far makes the most sense.

tallest skil said:

[...]

The problem, unfortunately, is that “legal pressure” is the equivalent of the honor system these days. Honored, of course, for everyone but “you and yours” (meaning a given government/governmental body and its current band of financial supporters/lobbyists). It’s ironic, but what we really need is civilian authoritarianism over government operation. 

It's hard to disagree. The Internet was like the one thing that actually worked for decades on the honor system. We're past that point now, the genie is out of the bottle. Unfortunately civilian authoritarianism doesn't work here, the internet is too large, too global, and has too many vested interests. The FCC had to step in because it became clear that the FTC was ill-equipped to handle the task at hand, and most importantly, the people demanded it.

lowededwookie said:

Forgive me for asking but I live in New Zealand so I don’t understand how America works but isn’t the FTC higher than the FCC? If so wouldn’t that be the best place to settle the issue because it has higher coverage?

In New Zealand we had similar issue with Telecom who controlled the infrastructure and set prices too high for competitors. In the end the government stepped in and forced Telecom to open up to competitors properly. As a result we’ve got fibre to the door for free in available areas, unlimited text messages, high amount of voice calling time, although our data plans on cellular suck but on fibre and ADSL they’re pretty good.

Sometimes the government DOES need to get involved but America just seems so unwilling to allow it despite it being in their best interests. I just don’t understand that mentality to be honest.

I know the FCC made the worst decision for everyone but to me it seems the FTC is the better place to sort the issue out. But once again I’m looking from the outside in.

That's a good question, and at the heart of argument between the majority parties we have here.

The Democrats will tell you that the FTC doesn't have enough power to address all the problems that can arise from a lack of net neutrality, and the Republicans will tell you that they have more than they need. The reality is that the Democrats are more correct on this issue. The "technically correct" answer ends up being the messiest and most expensive to implement -- It involves both agencies with overlapping jurisdiction and/or expanded powers.

Right now the FCC enjoys all the power it needs, so long as ISPs fall under Title II, so that's a much cleaner and easier fix for the problem as a whole. It does come with some extra overhead, but still far less than would exist if the 'technically correct' fix were to be implemented.