commodus

It's amazing how many people are getting hung up on "high fidelity" and assigning it more meaning than it has.  All it means here is that it's a smart speaker that can sound good, rather than adequate.  It doesn't mean that it'll replace your pristine-sounding $5,000 audiophile setup; it doesn't mean that music producers will be listening to masters with one.

And for that matter, too many self-proclaimed audiophiles deliberately interpret terms like "high fidelity" in a way that creates barriers and preserves that sense of being part of an exclusive club.  You're not allowed to enjoy the sound of a speaker unless it has this kind of frequency range or that kind of bass response.  We should be happy that the Sonos One is ushering in smart speakers that you actually want to listen to for music, rather than trying to find reasons why it shouldn't be counted as a good speaker.

grangerfx said:

That's a lot of money for a watch that looks like it is made out of plastic.
Here is what a white "ceramic" iPhone would look like.

Mind you, things change the moment you strap it on your wrist.  It's apparently very durable and should stay looking nice unless you have a really bad accident (say, dropping it from several feet up on to a hard floor).  My biggest beef: that white makes it hard to find a suitable alternative strap beyond what's in the box.

Holy crap, folks, this is a watch band celebrating a special event that promotes diversity, kindness and tolerance (among other positive values).  It's amazing how many people act as if this is the downfall of civilization.

Besides, here's some news: Microsoft is also in favour of LGBT rights.  So is Google.  So is Amazon.  If you're trying to find a major tech company to support that doesn't back LGBT rights... well, stop using technology, because you won't find it.

SpamSandwich said:

Sorry, but Samsung slavishly copied the iPhone for years and the entire category of "smartphones" (admittedly a "dumb" moniker if ever there was one) as we understand it today exists thanks to Apple. Samsung, Google and other fast followers are wannabes.

Samsung was uncannily close with the original Galaxy S and S II, and there have been design cues that have surfaced or persisted (the basic concept of a physical home button, the metal trim on the S6).  I'm not saying that there aren't conscious attempts to clone Apple.

However, it's 2016... not 2010.  The notion that every touchscreen phone on the market is an iPhone clone is just as flawed as claiming that every QWERTY keyboard phone is a BlackBerry clone, or that every first-person shooter game is a Doom clone.  At a certain point, you have to accept that a pioneer no longer defines the whole market, and that a once-groundbreaking technology is simply the lingua franca of the industry.

No, "most" Android phones don't look like iPhones. Besides that being a difficult thing to quantify (really, you've looked closely at hundreds or thousands of Android phones?), it's based on a flawed premise: that virtually any touchscreen-only phone is copying the iPhone. Yes, Apple was instrumental to popularizing the concept, but it's not as if a full-touch phone was a completely novel idea in January 2007. A device looks like an iPhone if it apes specific design cues, not if it's all-touch. An HTC One A9 is conspicuously imitating the iPhone (even if the iPhone 6/6s borrowed some HTC elements); a Moto X Pure Edition, LG V10 or Sony Xperia Z5 is not. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we embrace a more intelligent, nuanced form of fandom. Daniel's "all companies owe everything to Apple!" stance doesn't help anyone.