beowulfschmidt

About

Username
beowulfschmidt
Joined
Visits
193
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,267
Badges
1
Posts
1,717
  • Early previewers praise new HomePod's 'just wow' audio

    cgWerks said:
    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.
    williamlondondewmemuthuk_vanalingamcgWerks
  • Apple's iPadOS 16.3 is out with support for security keys

    SHK said:
    I'm not "getting" the benefit to Security Keys over two factor authentication, which is easy to use and effective.
    I hope AI does a story like "who needs Security Keys" to help me understand it better.

    Depends on the nature of the 2FA.  A text or an email are the worst possible options because of the inherent insecurity of those systems.  An authenticator app is only as good as the entity who created the app.

    A Yubikey is just a number, albeit a moderately long one.  And it never changes.
    dewme
  • iOS 16.3 now available with support for new HomePod, security keys

    DAalseth said:
    Does anyone know why you download the update, it verifies the update, then when you tell it to install it verifies the update again? I mean I’m all for security, but literally it just did that,
    Yeah, not only that, but I really appreciate the convenience of pressing the "Download and Install" link, and then having to press the "Install" link after it's downloaded.

    And has anyone else noticed that a Yubikey is just a number, albeit a long one?  A never changing number?
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Timothee Chalamet feels left out of Apple TV+ in new ad

    JP234 said:
    Isn't Timothee Chalamet busy with his "Dune" series on HBO Max? Or the inevitable "Bones and All" cannibalism rom-com? Apple TV+ should make choices based on what viewers want to see, not what actors want. And so far, they're doing a great job. Much better quality vs. quantity ratio than anyone else in the streaming milieu. If he's a fit for a future concept, fine, but I didn't like him in Dune. And there's no way I'm going to watch a romance between cannibals. Gotta draw the line somewhere, and that's it. If I'm going to watch a show about cannibals, I want them to be Maoris or zombies, not millenials (zombie cannibal millennials, sure. They're mostly iPhone zombies anyway).

    You do understand that this is an advertisement, and that he was paid, by Apple, to appear in it, right?

    To me, it seems like a safe bet that Chalamet will, in fact, be appearing in an Apple TV movie, show, or series in the not to distant future.
    FileMakerFeller
  • Early previewers praise new HomePod's 'just wow' audio

    cgWerks said:

    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?

    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondondewme