3 ms·

This is something of an absurd argument when Apple's modus operandi is to, for example, enforce Apple Music as the only native HomePod music service. And as a

by Andrex 9y ago

This is something of an absurd argument when Apple's modus operandi is to, for example, enforce Apple Music as the only native HomePod music service. And as a sibling comment mentions, HomeKit is not as open as what Google and Nest already use. The onus is on Apple.

osteele 9y ago
Apple's playbook is to launch with APIs for internal use and then, frequently, open them. Examples include iOS support for third-party apps, third-party access to a number of watchOS 2.0 APIs, and third-party access to iOS APIs such NFC, Touch ID, camera overlays, etc. etc. Apple is also ruthless about omitting features (copy/paste, anyone?) from 1.0 releases. This is in contrast to hardware support, which has tended to contract (floppy drives, CD drives, Ethernet cables, USB jacks, iPhone headphone jack). It also makes sense to many of us who have done platform development and/or supported public APIs. I'd want more evidence before concluding that HomePod's initial limitations are an M.O rather than an MVP.
- JeremyBanks 9y ago
  They have had internal support for voice-controlling your music since iOS 1. They had a cross-application API that let you voice control arbitrary music apps on Mac OS since at least 10.4, probably earlier. Music has been a core feature of the iPhone since they day it launched. It isn't an accident that they've failed to extend voice support to third parties after ten years. If they did plan to add it any time soon, they would have easily been able to get that to market before HomePod. They decided they'd rather continue trying to shove users into their subpar Music service, instead of supporting what users actually want and use. Conclusion: Don't Buy unless the only audio service you ever use is Apple Music.
gumby 9y ago
a small quibble: > Apple's modus operandi is to, for example, enforce Apple Music as the only native HomePod music service. (emphasis mine). I think you mean "natively support". You can send anything you like via their proprietary airplay service (like chromecast). "Enforce" is appropriate for, say, their requirement that iOS apps come only via their app store. Historically Apple, like others, play nice with standards when they are the underdog (the NeXT, and thus MacOS X.<small-integer>) was all about open standards like JPG, though they also paid the danegeld for things like the RTF and GIF licenses. The iPod not only supported mp3 but they openly encouraged ripping CDs. Hell, Steve Jobs paid us actual money to make gcc & objective-C++ gret on the NeXT (though he had a really good team already in place as well). Then as they gained more power they cared about openness less. Google was similar; they have a better committment to open source than Apple does but also try to use their market muscle to do things like their own mobile page format. In case I sound like an apologist, I also prefer open interoperability. But I am realistic about looking at the landscape.

by Andrex 9y ago

osteele 9y ago

Apple's playbook is to launch with APIs for internal use and then, frequently, open them. Examples include iOS support for third-party apps, third-party access to a number of watchOS 2.0 APIs, and third-party access to iOS APIs such NFC, Touch ID, camera overlays, etc. etc. Apple is also ruthless about omitting features (copy/paste, anyone?) from 1.0 releases. This is in contrast to hardware support, which has tended to contract (floppy drives, CD drives, Ethernet cables, USB jacks, iPhone headphone jack). It also makes sense to many of us who have done platform development and/or supported public APIs. I'd want more evidence before concluding that HomePod's initial limitations are an M.O rather than an MVP.

JeremyBanks 9y ago
They have had internal support for voice-controlling your music since iOS 1. They had a cross-application API that let you voice control arbitrary music apps on Mac OS since at least 10.4, probably earlier. Music has been a core feature of the iPhone since they day it launched. It isn't an accident that they've failed to extend voice support to third parties after ten years. If they did plan to add it any time soon, they would have easily been able to get that to market before HomePod. They decided they'd rather continue trying to shove users into their subpar Music service, instead of supporting what users actually want and use. Conclusion: Don't Buy unless the only audio service you ever use is Apple Music.

gumby 9y ago

a small quibble: > Apple's modus operandi is to, for example, enforce Apple Music as the only native HomePod music service. (emphasis mine). I think you mean "natively support". You can send anything you like via their proprietary airplay service (like chromecast). "Enforce" is appropriate for, say, their requirement that iOS apps come only via their app store. Historically Apple, like others, play nice with standards when they are the underdog (the NeXT, and thus MacOS X.<small-integer>) was all about open standards like JPG, though they also paid the danegeld for things like the RTF and GIF licenses. The iPod not only supported mp3 but they openly encouraged ripping CDs. Hell, Steve Jobs paid us actual money to make gcc & objective-C++ gret on the NeXT (though he had a really good team already in place as well). Then as they gained more power they cared about openness less. Google was similar; they have a better committment to open source than Apple does but also try to use their market muscle to do things like their own mobile page format. In case I sound like an apologist, I also prefer open interoperability. But I am realistic about looking at the landscape.