lorin schultz

StrangeDays said:
[...] APFS works awesome on my Mac, my AW3 kicks ass, my X kicks ass, my ATV kicks ass, my AirPods kick ass, etc..

I'm happy with most of my Apple products, but I disagree with your assessment of the Apple TV. There are massive holes in its capability, inconsistency in how it handles material from different sources, it can sometimes be a little confusing as some operations take the interface to unexpected windows/states, and features that were in older versions of the hardware are missing from the new one.

I'm not saying "it sucks" -- it doesn't -- but I wouldn't say it kicks ass. It still needs some serious massaging. I would not recommend it to most people as a general-use entertainment hub (specific Apple-centric applications and/or skilled/knowledgable users notwithstanding).

foggyhill said:
[...] Apple is all about INTEGRATION. That's were they shine and provide added value.

Integration may be Apple's goal, but they don't always get it right. The new Apple TV 4K is actually a step backwards in that regard. Unlike our Gen3 unit, it doesn't sync watched status between the cloud and local downloads. The TV app and Up Next show iTunes purchases and Prime, but NOT my local library or Netflix. It's a bit of a mixed up mess. Siri is another area in which integration has not yet been achieved.

None of that is a direct reflection on the as-yet untested HomePod per se, and obviously Apple probably does a better job of integration than other manufacturers. Still, it's not fair to say that buying a product made by Apple rather than someone else necessarily means it will either work well or play nicely with other Apple products. The holes in the ecosystem and occasional steps backwards (iLife, Final Cut, Apple TV are examples) indicate that it's not safe to assume every new product will mark progress on that front.

mike1 said:

DavidAlGregory said:

mike1 said:

jsmythe00 said:

Glad they are back on schedule. Sadly though, I don't see this product being successful. I think they priced themselves out the market. 

I don't get apple sometimes. Airpods are GREAT. What made them even greater is they priced them extremely compettitve. Same with the iPad. Apple watch was slightly overpriced. But this...it's a crippled device at premium price. 

Fix the price and allow third party music 

Price is fine. $350 is not expensive for good audio. It should be a premium product with better sound. They don't have to compete with Amazon's dreck. If there's any significant functionality missing, that's a different story. Not a rush, but I am looking forward to picking one up at some point.

This toy speaker is not good audio unless you are used to listening to MP3 files on a crappy set of Beats headphones. Got a great set of Focals in my Living Room that would give you a point of reference.

Stop with the ridiculous argument. Apples and oranges. I too have an excellent home audio system in my living room that I use for 2-channel audio and home theater. Nobody ever said or expected this would sound as good. This will, however, add good quality sound in other rooms. If it performs as expected, with far superior sound than most of the other cheap crap that's out there and with more functionality.

People told me that it was worth the extra money to buy a Beats Pill+ (which at the time was even more expensive than the high price it commands now) because it would sound better than Sony et al at half the price. Since I was buying it to take on vacation and wouldn't be back in time to return it, I took people at their word.

They were wrong. My daughter just bought some little POS bluetooth speaker for $70 that sounds at least as good as if not better than my Pill+.

I'm obviously not dismissing the idea that the HomePod may sound decent -- that would be silly without having heard it -- but I don't share your optimistic belief that it definitely will sound good just because it's supposed to. It may be that, as with the Pill, much less expensive devices sound as good or better. Or it may sound great and I'll be pleased. I'll be leaving myself room to back out of the purchase this time though, just in case.

kharvel said:

rob53 said:

lorin schultz said:

rob53 said:

[...] Of course my biggest issue with all of these routers is their cost. 

My initial reaction was sticker shock, but then I realized I paid more than that to have multiple Airports, and they don't provide mesh coverage.

Would even a decent router and extenders by much less expensive that what this costs?

I have two Airports configured to provide the same type of coverage mesh systems provide. Apple makes it real easy to configure the second device and it uses the same SSID so what's the difference between this configuration and a mesh system? I hardwired the second Airport to the first via ethernet so I wouldn't lose any speed. Apple sells the Extreme for $199, Amazon has refurbished for $169. The Veloc info says there are no unsightly connecting cables, but you still have the power cord and the main ethernet cable from your cable/DSL modem so there are cables involved. The Veloc has two ethernet ports so they can be connected the same way I connected my Airports.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202056 I used the roaming  configuration. Using Airport Utility, go under Wireless, then drop down menu to Extend Wireless Network. The Utility handles all the configuration settings and you're off and running. I haven't tried using a third Airport but I see no reason why this wouldn't work.

I am very interested in hearing other people's opinions on this set-up.  I'm thinking of getting another Airport Extreme and setting up a mesh network in the same fashion as rob53.  Does anyone know if this set-up would be just as good as a Netgear Orbi or Ubiquiti Amplifi mesh network?  

No. First, adding an extender does not create a mesh. Google it. Mesh has advantages over extenders.

Second, it doesn't work as well as you'd think. Our kitchen was a dead spot so we bought a second Airport Extreme and, with help from Apple telephone support, set it up as an extender to cover that side of the house.

The problem is that even though it's all one network with a common SSID, it's still seen by devices as two separate transmission points, and the device has to decide which one it wants to connect to. So, if I'm doing something in the living room and walk into the kitchen, the device may or may not switch over and connect to the second transmitter. Most of the time it just tries to cling to the signal from the living room.

So no, adding a second Airport is not the same or as good as a mesh system.

rogifan_new said:

One thing I disagree with is the idea that HomePod is targeting audiophiles. Um no. And that’s why I wonder if there’s a large enough market here for Apple to go after. People that aren’t obsessed with sound quality will buy an Echo or Google Home because they’re cheaper. Audiophiles will have home theater systems. I hope HomePod becomes a real platform and isn’t like the iPad mini where Apple created something because of market pressure more than anything else. 

One trap we all seem to fall into is dividing listeners into only two camps: ultra-critical audiophiles and audible-is-good-enough casual listeners. I fall in between, and as such am likely a good target for a middle-ground product like the HomePod. I wonder how many others are in that position?

I'm an audio engineer. Listening carefully and critically is what I do for a living. Over a few decades I've concluded a few things about reproduction systems:

1. There is a quality point after which most people won't hear any difference. I can make it technically and measurably "better" but the majority of listeners won't be able to tell the difference.

2. In any chain, whether it's production or reproduction, there's a point of diminishing returns. Adding 50% to the budget doesn't always generate a proportional increase in sound quality. At some point anyone but the most rabid and affluent audiophile will conclude that a certain increase in performance is too small to justify a certain increase in price. The threshold is different for everyone, but even among those who want and appreciate better sound, there's a limit to what they're willing to spend.

3. There are many factors that completely SWAMP the relatively small gains that can be achieved with better equipment. The biggest is the room in which the sound was recorded, second is the room in which it's played back. Better speakers won't cure a poor recording or a bad listening space.

4. Everyone has a certain threshold after which they stop hearing sound quality and start hearing music. Again, that threshold varies from person to person, but for most people, it's not very high. That means that things they can clearly hear in A-B comparisons fade away after a few seconds and don't matter anymore.

When I first got an HD TV the difference in quality between Blu-Ray and DVD was really obvious, but I discovered that my awareness of that difference faded away less than a minute into watching a movie. As long as there were no egregious and obvious artifacts, I was paying attention to the CONTENT, not the delivery, and didn't really notice the reduced detail.

The same is true of speakers. When played side by side, people will notice when one speaker is markedly better than another, but absent that comparison, as long as there are no obvious and distracting flaws, they'll just enjoy the music.

So the HomePod doesn't have to be "audiophile quality" to succeed, it just has to not exhibit obvious and distracting flaws, sound as good as its price tag, and offer something that competing products at a similar price don't. I'm inclined to agree with your expectation of a fairly narrow market segment choosing the HomePod, but then I thought the limited utility of Apple Watch would limit its success, so what do I know?