CloudTalkin

StrangeDays said:

CloudTalkin said:

StrangeDays said:

CloudTalkin said:

Future HPs should include more robust i/o for a wider reach imo.  BT playback and 3.5mm aux jack should be a minimum.  

This makes no sense to me:

The aim appears to be that a HomePod user will be able to touch any side of the speaker to perform at least basic volume control. This could be more convenient than having to reach the top of the speaker, for instance if the user has positioned the HomePod atop shelves.

More convenient how? If you're close enough to reach the side, aren't you close enough to reach the top?  It's not like the HP is a dimensional behemoth.  It's a small device that can be held in one hand.  If the HP is on a high shelf, you're still reaching just as high to touch the side.  At that point wouldn't a Siri command make more sense?  Control center command from iPhone or iPad?

Haptic fabric would seem a kinda meh addition to the HP

Using your example, if the HP is on a high shelf, swiping up on the fabric for volume up is definitely easier than needing to be higher than the entire speaker, and have line of sight in order to view the small touch surface at the top and find the tap target for volume up. 

If you have to reach for the speaker on a high shelf you still have to reach approximately the same distance to reach the fabric or the top.  It's literally a couple of inches difference.  At that point, it makes way more sense to either Siri the volume with your voice or Control Center the volume with a device.  Now Apple may come up with some novel use for the fabric, but the convenience quoted by the author isn't really that convenient, novel or useful imo.  

No you don't. The current touch surface is at the top of the device, mandating your eyeballs are above the speaker, and that there is clearance above the HP for you to see and get your hand positioned to connect with the small tap targets. If you could swipe up/down on the fabric itself it saves you a foot or more. I can easily re-create this use case by placing the speaker on a nearby shelf at face-level -- reaching over to swipe its side up/down is stone simple. But to operate the touch controls on the top, I have to step up on a chair in order to get higher than the top of the HP. 

Do you have one? If you did I think you'd understand why line-of-sight to the top of touch-device is less functional than adding the ability to use its sides for gestures. It's not even up for argument, it's just a fact.

Muscle memory counters that argument.  If you know where the plus and minus are relative to the HP's placement there's no need to see anything.  Similar to not needing to look at an alarm clock to stop the buzzing.  Turning on a light on the nightstand.  Any number of "sighted" activities that can be performed without looking because you know where to touch, push, pull, flip, etc.  I'm sure you can name a number of things that fit into that category.  An HP on a shelf would be one such thing.  Once it's on a shelf the + and - are in stationary positions.  They don't move around.  Regardless, you see it as a useful example and I don't.  In that particular example, standing up to touch the fabric volume would be a distant 3rd option behind telling Siri to make the adjustment or doing it through CC.  

StrangeDays said:

CloudTalkin said:

AppleZulu said:

CloudTalkin said:

Future HPs should include more robust i/o for a wider reach imo.  BT playback and 3.5mm aux jack should be a minimum.  

This makes no sense to me:

The aim appears to be that a HomePod user will be able to touch any side of the speaker to perform at least basic volume control. This could be more convenient than having to reach the top of the speaker, for instance if the user has positioned the HomePod atop shelves.

More convenient how? If you're close enough to reach the side, aren't you close enough to reach the top?  It's not like the HP is a dimensional behemoth.  It's a small device that can be held in one hand.  If the HP is on a high shelf, you're still reaching just as high to touch the side.  At that point wouldn't a Siri command make more sense?  Control center command from iPhone or iPad?

Haptic fabric would seem a kinda meh addition to the HP

It needs a 3.5mm jack, eh? Why stop there? Why not a FireWire port and an Ethernet port? Maybe some 8-ohm speaker connectors so you can strap ‘em onto your 1973 Marantz amplifier? Yes, while everyone else zigs toward wireless smart speaker functionality, Apple could zag HomePod into a wired utopia and seize the retro market while no one’s paying attention!

The current HP is an ecosystem locked device.  I'm sure it made sense to Apple at the time.  Probably thought it would help drive Apple Music sales, who knows.  There's no denying even minimal i/o like a 3.5mm jack and/or BT playback would have increased the reach and sales of the HP.  Pretty much all wireless smart speakers have BT playback capability and/or a 3.5mm jack because they want to be as accessible to as many people as possible.  

I'd be willing to bet if there's another HP speaker it will not be "garden restricted".  

I doubt very much they designed the HP hardware in order to drive Apple Music sales. Rather, they designed it to what they believe is the best featureset for Apple customers. Eg, Airplay > Bluetooth. AP is higher bandwidth and sounds better, making use of the high-end speaker design. If I'm on my iPhone I don't need to BT audio to a HP, because it's already an available AirPlay end-point. Similarly with 3.5mm analog jack -- that just isn't the use case Apple is building, they prefer wireless. It's an Apple-ecosystem speaker, not a general home audio speaker.

That's the part people seem to struggle with -- Apple builds for its ecosystem, not for general use cases. And that's perfectly OK. More than OK really, since it generally means they can optimize for the use cases they have in mind, rather than supporting all sorts of other devices and use cases. It's ecosystem tailored, not ecosystem locked. 

I doubt very much that we'll see 3.5mm analog jacks on the next HP. 

They might not have designed it to drive AM sales, hence the probably and who knows.  That best feature set for Apple customers logic doesn't track at all.  If it did, the Homepod wouldn't be the only Apple device lacking BT playback.  Instead, it's the only one.  3.5mm logic doesn't track either.  Apple still includes the port on all MBAs, MBPs, Mini's, iMacs, and MPs.  Current iPhone and iPad are the only devices besides the Homepod without a 3.5mm jack.  

The struggle seems to be with some Apple fans who are used to the old closed garden paradigm.  Anyone paying attention would clearly see Apple is consistently reaching beyond the garden in an attempt to monetize more than just the faithful.  It seems Apple sees Services as a conduit to a wider market.  It's why their products like Apple Music and ATV+ are basically platform agnostic.  You don't even need an Apple device to enjoy those Apple services.  Your view of Apple and my view of Apple are clearly different and that's okay.  As for ecosystem tailored vs locked... tomato-tomato.  Regardless of the wording you still end up with a device that has a more limited appeal to a smaller audience than it could have.  You doubt a jack on the next HP?  Fair, your opinion has just as much a chance to be right as mine does.  I think we'll get 3.5mm jack and BT at a minimum.  Time will tell.

tht said:

baka-dubbs said:

tht said:

Conceptually, there is a continuum between having 1 monolithic backlight, having an array of backlights, to having each pixel being independently lit. MiniLED is in the rather variable in-between of the two ends. Once you get down to the level of each pixel being independently lit, people will call that type of tech OLED or microLED.

I don't think the Pro Display qualifies as mini led, it basically has local dimming zones like most high end tv's.  Compare that to the TCL mini led screen, that has 25 thousand led's for backlights.  While its not a 1-1 pixel ratio, the ratio of pixels to led's is much smaller on a mini led vs those that have local dimming zones.  

No worries. I think of a miniLED as the concept of splitting the backlight into an array of backlights, and a miniLED is a display with more than one backlight and no more backlights than the number of pixels. There’s a rather wide variation in between. I don’t think there is a formal pixels per backlight or backlight density definition for miniLEDs, so people will have a rather wide definition of what constitutes something being miniLED. As long as there is a 2D array of backlights that are independently controlled, I’m good with saying it’s a miniLED.

LED's are typically considered Mini LED when the size is ~200 microns down to ~50 microns.  Regular LED's are typically around 1000 microns.  Mini LED is typically categorized by a backlight containing at least 1000 FALD zones.  I personally view Apple's 576 blue LED's as a sort of pre-cursor to what is generally accepted as Mini LED.

seanismorris said:

Are there any products on the market that use Mini LED?  Apple isn’t usually a trailblazer, even if they’re successful at bringing tech to mass-market...

TCL is using mini led tech in some of their TV lines.  Their Viridian Mini LED TV's use + 25,000 mini leds in the backlight panel.

macbootx said:

tht said:

The Pro Display XDR is a miniLED with an array of 576 backlights. 

These rumored miniLEDs are an order of magnitude increase in backlights though. Kuo was rumormongering 10,000 backlights. 

The Pro Display XDR Technology Overview doesn’t use the term “Mini LED” anywhere. 

Anyway, aren’t LED’s already “mini”? This article doesn’t even mention if the LED technology in question is some sort of improved LED backlighting or a replacement for LCD/OLED technology. 

The author assumes the reader is familiar with Mini LED tech since it has been a frequent topic on Appleinsider and other tech sites.  Mini LED is a known display technology, unfortunately often confused with Micro LED.  It is backlighting tech that improves local dimming, providing contrast closer to OLED.  It is used in conjunction with LCD tech primarily, and more recently with Quantum Dot tech in TCL's top of the line TV's.  It's not going to replace LCD because it can't produce an image.  It's basically a backlight on steroids.  It is an alternative to OLED and Micro LED (when it becomes widely commercially viable ← no time soon imo)

ElCapitan said:

Are they getting nervous over possible EU antitrust sanctions and fines?

Keeping in mind this is a Bloomberg rumor, if true, I'd think antitrust considerations would be the motivating factor here.  It would be a helluva lot better to get out ahead of any forced compliance which would likely be accompanied by fines.  Voluntarily increasing user options seems to be infinitely more desirable since it would effectively cut the talk of antitrust issues off before they get properly started.

Bonus: it would increase user choice.