cgWerks

GeorgeBMac said:

When one thinks of the nuances of what one does with a car -- such as where to park it or pick up someone (rather than the typical driving mode):
...  For example, a person who normally parks at the far end of the parking lot to protect the car from nicks and to get exercise decides to drive around the lot looking for the closest spot because its cold outside and they forgot a jacket....

Some form of human control is required...

If that control is remote, then it is possible to hack it and drive the car off a cliff rather than find the closest parking spot.  So, if anybody is going to be remotely controlling a car that I'm in, I would want it to be Apple.   Would anybody trust Microsoft or Google?

The big problem is that proponents of AI look at this as a quantitative problem. i.e.: sensors aren't good enough, processors aren't fast enough, etc. and that once this is overcome, the capacity will be there for the system to 'think' and figure this stuff out. However, it's actually a qualitative problem. AI doesn't think, and never will. The 'databases' of the decision tree will get built in more detail... programmers will make adjustments to how the car should respond... sensors and processors will get faster, allowing more detailed input and ability to crunch the data more quickly, but the fundamental issue remains. There will ***ALWAYS*** be unique, unpredictable situations that occur. When that happens, the AI will fail (hence remote control so a human can solve the situation).

While I trust Apple (currently) more in terms of data privacy, I don't trust any of them in regard to AI, because the proponents aren't even thinking correctly about it. They are living in a sci-fi dream-world.... and IMO, not really thinking of the downsides as much as the potential upsides and $$$.

randominternetperson said:
You really think Amazon and Google were working on their smart speakers before 2014?  That sounds like baloney to me.  http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/11/21/apple-allegedly-dithered-over-homepod-development-canceled-restarted-project

And in what bizarro world is "right" considered better than "great"?  He wasn't be "sneaky."

Yeah, since they released it in 2014, it's quite likely they were working on it before that (unless you know something about time-travel that I don't).

And, if I recall, Jobs used to talk about not releasing products until Apple could do them right. 'Great' is just marketing fluff... every company calls their products, great.

StrangeDays said:
Apple has long said they focus on design product confident that the profit will follow. Many other companies do not do this and design to profit first.

Yep, that's what made Apple great. The debate, is whether they are still operating under that principal or not.

StrangeDays said:
And getting it "right" isn't something that happens in one single product. Was the original iPhone "right", or was it "great"? It didn't have copy & paste, so it couldn't have been "right", but it was also "great". Ive said himself that even in hardware you go thru versions and re-work based on what you've learned, that even hardware doesn't stop a product from evolving and prevent a designer from going thru the iterative process. 

Of course products will iterate and improve. One could argue that an iPhone w/o copy/paste was quite hampered (and I'd certainly not bought one w/o that). And, Jobs wasn't above marketing fluff either, it just seems Cook is even more exaggerated, and Apple has been getting less and less, right. As I think I recall saying in another post, Apple is almost famous for releasing products w/o key features and then you have to get to the 2nd or 3rd gen before its functionality feels somewhat complete. It's just the excuse they use when something is running behind schedule... i.e.: we don't ship it until it is done right. I was simply noting how great is much more pliable than doing something right.

rotateleftbyte said:
He has to justify the huge increase in R&D spending. Kit to make cars 'Self-Driving' and a updates to existing products does not cut it for me. Where is all that money going? I expect that we will find out in good time.

One could waste a heck of a lot of money on the self-driving car thing. A lot of money is currently being wasted on it, and will be for some years.

spliff monkey said:
There was a well written AI article discussing exactly the situation You call baloney. They were working in the HomePod for quite some time. As a matter of fact the joke in the team was that one of the HomePod engineers must have told someone at amazon and google what they were working on. To further the story the Apple engineers quickly snapped up an Alexa or goog speaker, and discovered there was nothing of significance/ to worry about in terms of competitiveness. 

That does sounds like a good tech-history tale.

randominternetperson said:
That's not a standard definition of socialism.  Here's the definition from the source of all truth:  

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

Sorry to perpetuate the OT, but I just can't resist here. The concept (and flaw) of socialism, is that it can jettison the bad, corrupt business people and usher in the utopia by putting things in the hands of the people/government. The problem with this, much like Luther discovered when he sequestered himself away in the monastery, is that he 'brought that devil right in there with himself.'

Socialism (and modern crony capitalism) don't work because they are social sciences that don't get the social correct. If you build your system on a false premise, it will crumble. And history has proven many, many times how well socialism works. They just don't teach that in school any longer, apparently.

lorin schultz said:
SpamSandwich qualified the audio connector remark with the term "professional." I've never encountered an RCA jack in a professional setting (except on gear brought in by visiting musical guests), and the only 3.5mm jacks were mono connectors for the talent earpieces. My quarrel wasn't with the desire for an input jack, but with the unnecessary exaggeration of the HomePod's status in the audio hierarchy. Thus I responded with the same kind of gear-snob scoff I emit when someone refers to a USB microphone as "high end." If a HomePod is "professional," what are Genelec, Adam, Dynaudio, et al?

There's nothing wrong with a HomePod being a superb home entertainment device (or with a USB mic being a good fit for many applications). It's the desire among their users to elevate such devices above their station that bugs me. Like how a Ferrari mechanic would feel when someone talks about their race-fitted Civic.

Ahh, OK, gotcha. Yea, 'professional' was probably the wrong word-choice for the HomePod, heh.

chasm said:
If you're buying the speaker primarily to play music and control said music with your voice, you probably want the HomePod. Every review I've seen thus far (barring that bizarre CR review) basically says the same thing: the HomePod is the smart speaker for people who are into music. As with other Apple products, I expect the HomePod will get "smarter" with updates over the next year or so, but for a music-centered smart speaker, this is the one you should invest in.

But, here's the thing... if you're buying it primarily to play music, then the competition isn't other 'smart' speakers.

So, then it is up against powered bookshelf speakers in the $350 and under range, as well as any pair of speakers that cost less than $250 (except maybe obnoxiously big ones, as room aesthetics are part of it too) as you can add an adequate amp for ~$100. And, these would even have aux-in, so you could use them with anything, not just the Apple universe.

MacPro said:
I'd like to know that too, but buying at least one on Friday anyway.

We'll be looking for reports! Especially any kind of comparison feedback to something we might be familiar with in terms of sound quality.

Like, I'm curious if this would sound better than any of the Logitech speakers you'd plug into a computer or Airport Express, or say something like Kanto YU4 w/ Airport Express. (similar price range) I know (or least I'm pretty sure) it isn't going to sound as good as an amp and pair of reasonably good speakers. But, you're not going to get those for $350 either.

Aplus said:
I’m assuming Apple TV will be able to stream to it, but I’d really like to know if there’s any way to get audio from other things connected to a television to it (e.g. Playstation, OTA/cablebox). Does anyone know if it at least has an AUX in?

I kind of doubt it, and sometimes there is lag involved in these kind of systems (which makes them not great for 'live' type stuff like gaming or playing keyboard/guitar through, etc.) But, maybe Airplay 2 addresses that kind of thing?

rogifan_new said:
Which is why I think it’s a niche product with a limited market. Also I wouldn’t call it truly wireless as it has to be connected to a power source to work.

If my family is any indication, or many I know... I think we'll be surprised. Most people don't care much about home-theatre, stereo systems, etc. anymore so the competition is iPad/laptop speakers and the other BT and garbage home-assistant speakers. If these sound substantially better, a lot of people will buy them.

2old4fun said:

boxcatcher said:

I just keep thinking of the particular combination of traits a person would have to have in order to want this, and I just keep being left with a very small population of consumers... 

What do you think the size of the population of consumers that want a Rolls Royce is?  Is it so small that the car should be discontinued?  

I just wish Apple would apply THAT kind of thinking to the Mac.  (Or, heck, even Steve's favorite for analogy, BMW. Apple seems to be now shooting more for a Subaru or Mazda audience, with a few Chevy Cruze thrown in.)

sandor said:
well, is Apple using it for 20Hz to 2 KHz or 20Hz to 200Hz??

size isn't the differential, what frequencies Apple is sending to the speaker is what makes the difference.

I think it's more about whether the speaker can reproduce the frequencies Apple sends to it with any quality.