5 ms·

Apple’s HomePod: Paying $350 for a speaker that says “no” this much is tough

35 points by Osiris 9y ago

godzillabrennus 9y ago
I share the opinion of many that it's not a worthy contender in the market at this point. However, Apple released the iPhone without basic functions like copy and paste but focused hard on a user experience no one else had worked on to create the most valuable mobile phone product in history. There is potential here for a high quality speaker like this to mature into a quality product. Unfortunately for Apple though I'm not interested in helping fund that market for them. I will keep my Amazon Echo's in the home until I feel compelled to switch because they have leapfrogged the competition.
- bcaulfield 9y ago
  I got an Amazon Echo as a present a couple months ago. I haven't even bothered to unbox it. What can it really do, besides order stuff from Amazon for me? Play Amazon music? Not a subscriber. Turn off my lights? Nice party trick, but I live in a small apartment, not much use there. Look stuff up on Wikipedia?
  - vollmond 9y ago
    Play music (spotify, amazon music, pandora, etc), control any home automation you have (hue lights, etc), be a super easy hands-free kitchen timer ("Alexa, set a timer for 45 minutes"), answer basic information questions (forecast, store hours, unit conversions). If you have more than one, it can be an in-home intercom. edit: I started this before you edited in your examples, so sorry for the overlap :-)
  - JimmyAustin 9y ago
    I use my dot almost exclusively for music. Hook it up to a nice stereo system and it turns a dumb stereo system into a Spotify device that i can control with my voice or from my phone.
    - urda 9y ago
      Same. I just have a nice little bluetooth speaker paired to it that I can move around my space whenever I like.
  - gxs 9y ago
    I agree with you. Its most useful features so far have worked best in the bedroom. Alexa, set my alarm for 7AM. Wake me up in 2 hours. what's the weather in X? What's my commute? Nightlight. That's about it.
  - sfilargi 9y ago
    I find it useful for just three things: 1. Play music 2. Timers, especially when cooking 3. Turn lights and heating on and off. It's nice to be able to control them while in bed with just your voice. Nothing I couldn't live without, but it adds convenience.
  - conception 9y ago
    It also supports spotify, pandora, etc. For me Alexa is great for Home Automation (which while turning off the lights is a night party trick, it's pretty great to turn down the lights when you're already on the couch. Yes, 100% unneeded, but it is nice.), Cheap Sonos Style Music in Every Room sync'd, and yes, ordering stuff from Amazon. Again, totally unneeded, but for certain goods, I've found it nice to just say, "Alex, order me more blah" and it replies, "These that you recently ordered?" "Yep" "Ok. Done." All of this isn't stuff you need, but hey, it's pretty rad nerd stuff.
  - onion2k 9y ago
    You can write new skills very easily, or use IFTTT with it, so it can actually do pretty much anything.
  - raker 9y ago
    I get daily use from my two echos with these functions: set a timer for x minutes, remind me to x at y am/pm, set an alarm for y am/pm, connect to my phone (so I can play bluetooth music), what time is it (when I'm in bed at night; I prefer not to have a bright clock splitting the darkness). A lot of this stuff my phone can already do, but it's easier not having to always pull out my phone. I've never used it for ordering, amazon music, lights, or to ask it questions for its biased responses.
    - slantyyz 9y ago
      >> it's easier not having to always pull out my phone. Not just that, but you don't have to hunt for apps and fiddle with UI. Asking Alexa to set the heat to 21.5 degrees is way faster than finding the closest mobile device, unlocking, launching the app and doing a bunch of taps. While I'm missing a couple of skills in Canada (stupid region locks!), the smart home control has been fantastic for our household. We also find the shopping list helpful.
  - spelunker 9y ago
    Hooking it up to my lights and playing music is nice, but honestly having a hands-free timer when cooking can't be beat. So yes, a $40 timer. Still worth it.
- acqq 9y ago
  > it's not a worthy contender in the market at this point However I'm not aware there's anything else comparable on the market: 7 separate tweeters with 7 amplifiers in such a small unit -- which to me means it's much more capable in reducing distortions compared to anything it competes with. In short, I don't know there's any exact contender in the market. The capability to control distortions by using the separate amplifiers and a fast CPU means that any reviewer who compares it with anything else while keeping it in the middle of the room is missing the point. This device is supposedly made to sound good when located on the place where the "audiophile" wouldn't put, that is, where "normal" people put the devices, not because they spend the energy to figure out what sounds best but because the convenience, existing furniture etc. Whoever can organize the whole room around the best sound doesn't have to buy anything small anyway.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    I haven't heard this product but can't believe it could work in anything even in the same universe as "audiophile" speakers, or even less than average speakers. Bouncing sounds around the room does not "control distortions". In fact it does the complete opposite. That's exactly why actual audiophiles spend thousands of dollars on room treatment to deaden reflections. It's the same as those Atmos speakers that attempt to bounce the sound off the ceiling. It's impossible to do that without introducing a massive amount of distortion, also the frequency response of the bounced sound waves is completely screwed even if it works at all. It will also depend on the surface material and the angle of those surfaces, something the Homepod couldn't possibly know. It's just a misunderstanding of the physics of sound to think this could work in anything close to an "audiophile" way. Do you put a measurement microphone at the listening location to optimize for that location? Otherwise how could it possibly know where in the room the listener is to align those 7 bounced audiophile signals? That might be the only thing to possibly make this product not a complete joke. I'd rather have a single reasonable speaker with a T-Amp plugged into a phone than what this must sound like. And that would cost maybe $100, if that. A silly bound-to-sound-crap speaker locked into the Apple ecosystem, with microphones that can record your conversations in the living room... for $350!! I would literally never even consider buying this product. Man, I feel more and more removed from the average consumer every day.
- fusiongyro 9y ago
  The original iPhone made a point of doing three things well: being an iPod, being a phone, and being a mobile internet appliance. Basically everybody had a phone and an iPod at the time, the combination was enough to sell a lot of people. Having an excellent real browser and very good mail app certainly helped a lot. But I think the "third heat" effect there had a lot to do with the success of it. The HomePod will not be saved by being the best at one of the two or three major functions of these things, when it is so absolutely sucky at the other two. I'm sure a cult following will develop around the audio quality. But this product is going to fail unless they address the elephant: Siri is worst-in-class on an iPhone, and it's apparently even more hampered on the HomePod. What are the "platform" effects you think are going to sell this, like the original iPhone had? What exactly could Apple do to enhance this, beyond the obvious one of getting Siri to work? Apple TV is kind of in a similar boat. The sales numbers are not that great, the competition is stiff, and the refreshed Apple TV has continued to not get enough love to really address this. They just seem like they can't keep it together.
wand3r 9y ago
HomePod should have been an integrated AppleTV/Speaker/Siri. That would have made people actually buy it
walterbell 9y ago
Once upon a time, there was something called a "personal computer", which executed any program chosen by the person who paid for the device. There is no technical reason why an Apple speaker could not be connected to Alexa, Google or private/niche speech recognition, when desired by the person who paid for the speaker. This is a $350 device which runs only one app. Why?
- falcolas 9y ago
  People pay $800+ for home entertainment systems which run no apps, for the singular purpose of playing music. If the sound is as good as the Reddit comment said, I can see people thinking "yeah, that's worth it."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- nemothekid 9y ago
  Ignoring the technical reasons (for which there are a couple, non-standard software APIs for one), In that same time, you would have likely paid a fee to have Alexa/Google/Private app to run on your "personal computer".
- askafriend 9y ago
  > This is a $350 device which runs only one app. Why? Because the consumer doesn't care about the things you care about - they truly don't care at all. Zero. Nil. The consumer wants to play music, they want it to sound good, they want zero setup or calibration involved, they want good software integration with the ecosystem they're already familiar with and they want the device to look good alongside their home decor. Oh and they want reliable, no-lag, multi-room audio so that their setup can expand throughout their home. Now go in the market and tell me which device accomplishes these things. The answer is very very very few. There's Sonos, and really that's about it. There are a bunch of major drawbacks with Sonos: the Sonos app is complete garbage, there's calibration required, it doesn't sound as good, it doesn't look as good and the software integration with any ecosystem let alone Apple's is subpar. With HomePod, those in the Apple ecosystem finally have a best-in-class sounding speaker which is deeply integrated into the software they already know and use throughout their life (Mac, iPad, iPhone, Watch, etc), looks beautiful, is small, and just works with no setup (AirPlay, Real time whole room calibration). To achieve that in one elegant package is no small feat. The reason many people are getting mad is because it's not a device that's for them - which is completely OK. This is a product that is targeted at Apple's consumer base which if you're counting is at nearly a billion users or more. They do not need to appeal to those with an Android phone or those who use Spotify to sell this thing at scale and be successful by any reasonable metric. They simply don't have to, and people can get angry about it all they want.
fermienrico 9y ago
I don't understand music quality arguments with these small systems - Sonos/Homepod/etc. Get proper speakers - 8.5" drivers ($600) and a decent amplifier (Yamaha $250). This stereo will out compete any of these intelligent speakers. Whats missing (except Alexa) is an auxiliary audio out that can be hooked up to existing system like the one I mentioned above. Google Home doesn't have it but it works with Chromcast add on. I personally use apple TV as my Airplay hub. So, about all that's missing is a microphone. I simply do not understand - perhaps I am a minority - the argument and discussion around sound quality. There is no replacement in my opinion to a standard large diameter floor standing speaker. If I want to listen to music, I don't want any compromise - I want to be able to play it on my main stereo. Some people just don't care and they'll put music on their phone or some random bluetooth doodad. Why?
- fusiongyro 9y ago
  I absolutely agree, and the fact that Apple TV works in such a configuration, but apparently is unable to pair permanently with the HomePod speaks to Apple's complete disorganization around this.
  - jorde 9y ago
    HomePod does persist Airplay connection with AppleTV as long as you don't Airplay directly to HomePod from a separate source. You can still Airplay to AppleTV that is Airplay'ing to HomePod but that will turn on your TV. It's not perfect but I have enjoyed using HomePod as my primary AppleTV speaker since launch and hope they introduce multiple Airplay streams with Airplay2 release.
    - fusiongyro 9y ago
      That's good to hear. One of the reviews I saw said that it did not maintain that connection; maybe that was a bug or I misunderstood.
- falcolas 9y ago
  So, a $850 system will outperform a $350 system in terms of sound? I can't say I'm surprised. If you need a $850 setup to get what you consider to be "good sound", you're not the audience for these kinds of speakers. And yes, this is from someone who also has a Yamaha receiver and good speakers.
rocky1138 9y ago
Is there any reason for these "intelligent" speakers to exist except novelty?
jaysonelliot 9y ago
The HomePod is a redux of the Apple HiFi from 2006–2007. It's a high-quality, high-priced speaker meant for the Apple music ecosystem. The first time they tried this, the Apple HiFi got great reviews for its sound quality, but failed in the marketplace. The question is whether the HomePod will meet the same fate. It's got more functionality than the HiFi, but even less utility outside of the Apple walled garden. What's worse, they've got a fundamental mismatch between consumer perception (people think it's an Alexa / Google Home competitor) and what seems to be Apple's intent (it's an audiophile device for streaming music). If they pivot quickly and release a small, competitively priced version that can compete directly with Amazon and Google, it could survive. But as it stands, it's a niche product for a small market that looks likely to meet the same fate as the HiFi.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Problem is the sound quality is getting mixed reviews and the assistant gets poor. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-really-sound-best-160346138.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-reall... A home sound test of the Apple HomePod - Yahoo Finance http://www.techradar.com/news/google-home-max-tops-apple-homepod-for-audio-says-consumer-reports http://www.techradar.com/news/google-home-max-tops-apple-hom... Google Home Max tops Apple HomePod for audio, says Consumer Reports
  - askafriend 9y ago
    Consumer Reports is an awful publication. Their methodologies are often very flawed and very opaque. I also would not trust Yahoo finance for audio reviews. As an example of CR's egregiously bad testing, they run battery tests by cranking brightness up to 100% on various devices. However if you have half a brain, you'll realize that display technology matters and is different across phones. At the very least, you want to set the different phones to a certain level of "nits" which is a measure of brightness rather than an arbitrary "100%" which can mean wildly different things. It actively penalizes phones with better display technology just because their displays can output brighter light.
- kdot 9y ago
perseusprime11 9y ago
Interoperability is dead!
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Also did not fair well in a blind test up against the Google Home Max and Sonos based on sound quality. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-really-sound-best-160346138.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-reall... A home sound test of the Apple HomePod - Yahoo Finance Also saw consumer report was meh on the Homepod. The hope was fantastic sound but not a great assistant. Does not appear they nailed either. https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/12/google-home-max-sonos-one-homepod-test/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/12/google-home-max-sonos-one-hom... Consumer Reports: HomePod audio quality 'very good' but Google ...
reaperducer 9y ago
>Paying $350 for a speaker that says “no” this much is tough A year ago, people were paying $350 for speakers that don't say anything — they just play music. Hooked up to a stereo with WIRES! Some people still do. Funny how technology makes us feel entitled.

35 points by Osiris 9y ago

I share the opinion of many that it's not a worthy contender in the market at this point. However, Apple released the iPhone without basic functions like copy and paste but focused hard on a user experience no one else had worked on to create the most valuable mobile phone product in history. There is potential here for a high quality speaker like this to mature into a quality product. Unfortunately for Apple though I'm not interested in helping fund that market for them. I will keep my Amazon Echo's in the home until I feel compelled to switch because they have leapfrogged the competition.

bcaulfield 9y ago
I got an Amazon Echo as a present a couple months ago. I haven't even bothered to unbox it. What can it really do, besides order stuff from Amazon for me? Play Amazon music? Not a subscriber. Turn off my lights? Nice party trick, but I live in a small apartment, not much use there. Look stuff up on Wikipedia?
- vollmond 9y ago
  Play music (spotify, amazon music, pandora, etc), control any home automation you have (hue lights, etc), be a super easy hands-free kitchen timer ("Alexa, set a timer for 45 minutes"), answer basic information questions (forecast, store hours, unit conversions). If you have more than one, it can be an in-home intercom. edit: I started this before you edited in your examples, so sorry for the overlap :-)
- JimmyAustin 9y ago
  I use my dot almost exclusively for music. Hook it up to a nice stereo system and it turns a dumb stereo system into a Spotify device that i can control with my voice or from my phone.
  - urda 9y ago
    Same. I just have a nice little bluetooth speaker paired to it that I can move around my space whenever I like.
- gxs 9y ago
  I agree with you. Its most useful features so far have worked best in the bedroom. Alexa, set my alarm for 7AM. Wake me up in 2 hours. what's the weather in X? What's my commute? Nightlight. That's about it.
- sfilargi 9y ago
  I find it useful for just three things: 1. Play music 2. Timers, especially when cooking 3. Turn lights and heating on and off. It's nice to be able to control them while in bed with just your voice. Nothing I couldn't live without, but it adds convenience.
- conception 9y ago
  It also supports spotify, pandora, etc. For me Alexa is great for Home Automation (which while turning off the lights is a night party trick, it's pretty great to turn down the lights when you're already on the couch. Yes, 100% unneeded, but it is nice.), Cheap Sonos Style Music in Every Room sync'd, and yes, ordering stuff from Amazon. Again, totally unneeded, but for certain goods, I've found it nice to just say, "Alex, order me more blah" and it replies, "These that you recently ordered?" "Yep" "Ok. Done." All of this isn't stuff you need, but hey, it's pretty rad nerd stuff.
- onion2k 9y ago
  You can write new skills very easily, or use IFTTT with it, so it can actually do pretty much anything.
- raker 9y ago
  I get daily use from my two echos with these functions: set a timer for x minutes, remind me to x at y am/pm, set an alarm for y am/pm, connect to my phone (so I can play bluetooth music), what time is it (when I'm in bed at night; I prefer not to have a bright clock splitting the darkness). A lot of this stuff my phone can already do, but it's easier not having to always pull out my phone. I've never used it for ordering, amazon music, lights, or to ask it questions for its biased responses.
  - slantyyz 9y ago
    >> it's easier not having to always pull out my phone. Not just that, but you don't have to hunt for apps and fiddle with UI. Asking Alexa to set the heat to 21.5 degrees is way faster than finding the closest mobile device, unlocking, launching the app and doing a bunch of taps. While I'm missing a couple of skills in Canada (stupid region locks!), the smart home control has been fantastic for our household. We also find the shopping list helpful.
- spelunker 9y ago
  Hooking it up to my lights and playing music is nice, but honestly having a hands-free timer when cooking can't be beat. So yes, a $40 timer. Still worth it.
acqq 9y ago
> it's not a worthy contender in the market at this point However I'm not aware there's anything else comparable on the market: 7 separate tweeters with 7 amplifiers in such a small unit -- which to me means it's much more capable in reducing distortions compared to anything it competes with. In short, I don't know there's any exact contender in the market. The capability to control distortions by using the separate amplifiers and a fast CPU means that any reviewer who compares it with anything else while keeping it in the middle of the room is missing the point. This device is supposedly made to sound good when located on the place where the "audiophile" wouldn't put, that is, where "normal" people put the devices, not because they spend the energy to figure out what sounds best but because the convenience, existing furniture etc. Whoever can organize the whole room around the best sound doesn't have to buy anything small anyway.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  I haven't heard this product but can't believe it could work in anything even in the same universe as "audiophile" speakers, or even less than average speakers. Bouncing sounds around the room does not "control distortions". In fact it does the complete opposite. That's exactly why actual audiophiles spend thousands of dollars on room treatment to deaden reflections. It's the same as those Atmos speakers that attempt to bounce the sound off the ceiling. It's impossible to do that without introducing a massive amount of distortion, also the frequency response of the bounced sound waves is completely screwed even if it works at all. It will also depend on the surface material and the angle of those surfaces, something the Homepod couldn't possibly know. It's just a misunderstanding of the physics of sound to think this could work in anything close to an "audiophile" way. Do you put a measurement microphone at the listening location to optimize for that location? Otherwise how could it possibly know where in the room the listener is to align those 7 bounced audiophile signals? That might be the only thing to possibly make this product not a complete joke. I'd rather have a single reasonable speaker with a T-Amp plugged into a phone than what this must sound like. And that would cost maybe $100, if that. A silly bound-to-sound-crap speaker locked into the Apple ecosystem, with microphones that can record your conversations in the living room... for $350!! I would literally never even consider buying this product. Man, I feel more and more removed from the average consumer every day.
fusiongyro 9y ago
The original iPhone made a point of doing three things well: being an iPod, being a phone, and being a mobile internet appliance. Basically everybody had a phone and an iPod at the time, the combination was enough to sell a lot of people. Having an excellent real browser and very good mail app certainly helped a lot. But I think the "third heat" effect there had a lot to do with the success of it. The HomePod will not be saved by being the best at one of the two or three major functions of these things, when it is so absolutely sucky at the other two. I'm sure a cult following will develop around the audio quality. But this product is going to fail unless they address the elephant: Siri is worst-in-class on an iPhone, and it's apparently even more hampered on the HomePod. What are the "platform" effects you think are going to sell this, like the original iPhone had? What exactly could Apple do to enhance this, beyond the obvious one of getting Siri to work? Apple TV is kind of in a similar boat. The sales numbers are not that great, the competition is stiff, and the refreshed Apple TV has continued to not get enough love to really address this. They just seem like they can't keep it together.

wand3r 9y ago

HomePod should have been an integrated AppleTV/Speaker/Siri. That would have made people actually buy it

walterbell 9y ago

Once upon a time, there was something called a "personal computer", which executed any program chosen by the person who paid for the device. There is no technical reason why an Apple speaker could not be connected to Alexa, Google or private/niche speech recognition, when desired by the person who paid for the speaker. This is a $350 device which runs only one app. Why?

falcolas 9y ago
People pay $800+ for home entertainment systems which run no apps, for the singular purpose of playing music. If the sound is as good as the Reddit comment said, I can see people thinking "yeah, that's worth it."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nemothekid 9y ago
Ignoring the technical reasons (for which there are a couple, non-standard software APIs for one), In that same time, you would have likely paid a fee to have Alexa/Google/Private app to run on your "personal computer".
askafriend 9y ago
> This is a $350 device which runs only one app. Why? Because the consumer doesn't care about the things you care about - they truly don't care at all. Zero. Nil. The consumer wants to play music, they want it to sound good, they want zero setup or calibration involved, they want good software integration with the ecosystem they're already familiar with and they want the device to look good alongside their home decor. Oh and they want reliable, no-lag, multi-room audio so that their setup can expand throughout their home. Now go in the market and tell me which device accomplishes these things. The answer is very very very few. There's Sonos, and really that's about it. There are a bunch of major drawbacks with Sonos: the Sonos app is complete garbage, there's calibration required, it doesn't sound as good, it doesn't look as good and the software integration with any ecosystem let alone Apple's is subpar. With HomePod, those in the Apple ecosystem finally have a best-in-class sounding speaker which is deeply integrated into the software they already know and use throughout their life (Mac, iPad, iPhone, Watch, etc), looks beautiful, is small, and just works with no setup (AirPlay, Real time whole room calibration). To achieve that in one elegant package is no small feat. The reason many people are getting mad is because it's not a device that's for them - which is completely OK. This is a product that is targeted at Apple's consumer base which if you're counting is at nearly a billion users or more. They do not need to appeal to those with an Android phone or those who use Spotify to sell this thing at scale and be successful by any reasonable metric. They simply don't have to, and people can get angry about it all they want.

fermienrico 9y ago

I don't understand music quality arguments with these small systems - Sonos/Homepod/etc. Get proper speakers - 8.5" drivers ($600) and a decent amplifier (Yamaha $250). This stereo will out compete any of these intelligent speakers. Whats missing (except Alexa) is an auxiliary audio out that can be hooked up to existing system like the one I mentioned above. Google Home doesn't have it but it works with Chromcast add on. I personally use apple TV as my Airplay hub. So, about all that's missing is a microphone. I simply do not understand - perhaps I am a minority - the argument and discussion around sound quality. There is no replacement in my opinion to a standard large diameter floor standing speaker. If I want to listen to music, I don't want any compromise - I want to be able to play it on my main stereo. Some people just don't care and they'll put music on their phone or some random bluetooth doodad. Why?

fusiongyro 9y ago
I absolutely agree, and the fact that Apple TV works in such a configuration, but apparently is unable to pair permanently with the HomePod speaks to Apple's complete disorganization around this.
- jorde 9y ago
  HomePod does persist Airplay connection with AppleTV as long as you don't Airplay directly to HomePod from a separate source. You can still Airplay to AppleTV that is Airplay'ing to HomePod but that will turn on your TV. It's not perfect but I have enjoyed using HomePod as my primary AppleTV speaker since launch and hope they introduce multiple Airplay streams with Airplay2 release.
  - fusiongyro 9y ago
    That's good to hear. One of the reviews I saw said that it did not maintain that connection; maybe that was a bug or I misunderstood.
falcolas 9y ago
So, a $850 system will outperform a $350 system in terms of sound? I can't say I'm surprised. If you need a $850 setup to get what you consider to be "good sound", you're not the audience for these kinds of speakers. And yes, this is from someone who also has a Yamaha receiver and good speakers.

rocky1138 9y ago

Is there any reason for these "intelligent" speakers to exist except novelty?

jaysonelliot 9y ago

The HomePod is a redux of the Apple HiFi from 2006–2007. It's a high-quality, high-priced speaker meant for the Apple music ecosystem. The first time they tried this, the Apple HiFi got great reviews for its sound quality, but failed in the marketplace. The question is whether the HomePod will meet the same fate. It's got more functionality than the HiFi, but even less utility outside of the Apple walled garden. What's worse, they've got a fundamental mismatch between consumer perception (people think it's an Alexa / Google Home competitor) and what seems to be Apple's intent (it's an audiophile device for streaming music). If they pivot quickly and release a small, competitively priced version that can compete directly with Amazon and Google, it could survive. But as it stands, it's a niche product for a small market that looks likely to meet the same fate as the HiFi.

jacksmith21006 9y ago
Problem is the sound quality is getting mixed reviews and the assistant gets poor. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-really-sound-best-160346138.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-reall... A home sound test of the Apple HomePod - Yahoo Finance http://www.techradar.com/news/google-home-max-tops-apple-homepod-for-audio-says-consumer-reports http://www.techradar.com/news/google-home-max-tops-apple-hom... Google Home Max tops Apple HomePod for audio, says Consumer Reports
- askafriend 9y ago
  Consumer Reports is an awful publication. Their methodologies are often very flawed and very opaque. I also would not trust Yahoo finance for audio reviews. As an example of CR's egregiously bad testing, they run battery tests by cranking brightness up to 100% on various devices. However if you have half a brain, you'll realize that display technology matters and is different across phones. At the very least, you want to set the different phones to a certain level of "nits" which is a measure of brightness rather than an arbitrary "100%" which can mean wildly different things. It actively penalizes phones with better display technology just because their displays can output brighter light.
kdot 9y ago

perseusprime11 9y ago

Interoperability is dead!

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Also did not fair well in a blind test up against the Google Home Max and Sonos based on sound quality. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-really-sound-best-160346138.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/head-head-apple-homepod-reall... A home sound test of the Apple HomePod - Yahoo Finance Also saw consumer report was meh on the Homepod. The hope was fantastic sound but not a great assistant. Does not appear they nailed either. https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/12/google-home-max-sonos-one-homepod-test/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/12/google-home-max-sonos-one-hom... Consumer Reports: HomePod audio quality 'very good' but Google ...

reaperducer 9y ago

>Paying $350 for a speaker that says “no” this much is tough A year ago, people were paying $350 for speakers that don't say anything — they just play music. Hooked up to a stereo with WIRES! Some people still do. Funny how technology makes us feel entitled.