Slashdot Mirror


Things Apple's $350 HomePod Smart-Speaker Can't Do: Answer Random Questions, Check Calendar, Work With an Android Phone, and More (businessinsider.com)

In June last year, Apple announced the HomePod, its first smart-speaker which will battle Amazon's sleeper hit Echo speakers and Google's Home speakers. Apple being late to enter a product category is nothing new, but the HomePod has a few other strange things about it. Apple said it won't begin shipping the HomePod until December that year, in a departure of its own tradition. Then the device's shipment was delayed till "early 2018" -- February 9 is the current shipping date. Bloomberg has reported about the difficulties Apple engineers faced over the years to come up with the HomePod.

At any rate, Business Insider now has more information about the device, and is reporting the things that Apple's first smart-speaker won't be able to do. From the report (condensed): 1. HomePod can't pair with Android phones.
2. HomePod doesn't recognize different people's voices.
3. HomePod can't check your calendar.
4. HomePod doesn't work well with other streaming services besides Apple Music. (Spotify, Tindal, and Pandora users won't be able to use Siri.)
5. HomePod can't hook up to another device using an auxiliary cord.
6. HomePod can't make calls on its own. (In order to make a call using HomePod, you have to dial the person's number on your iPhone, then manually select that the call play through HomePod.)
7. The HomePod version of Siri isn't prepared to answer random questions like Alexa and Google Assistant.

129 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Walled garden... by nastyphil · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is now limited to bonzais and flower pots only.

    --
    Dialectician. Archology.
    1. Re:Walled garden... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...is now limited to bonzais and flower pots only.

      Not being able to answer questions is not problem for Apple users.

      They already know everything better anyway.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Walled garden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A magnitude less than you.

    3. Re:Walled garden... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps Apple will supply an adapter for the HomePod that lets you attach an Alexa device in order to make it useful.

      They do make the coolest adapters.

    4. Re:Walled garden... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      They make courageous adapters.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    5. Re:Walled garden... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      limited to bonzais and flower pots only.

      A poetic expression of what in my view is Siri's biggest weakness: no 3rd party developer access. Apps cannot hook into Siri*, and there will be no 3rd party Homepod plugins similar to Alexa "skills" by the looks of things.

      *) unless you're building one of six very specific types of apps, and not competing with Apple.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Walled garden... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      In my view, Siri's biggest weakness is that there's no reason for it to exist at all. Okay, I guess Siri was the first of the voice-activated digital assistants on mobile devices, so that complicates things. But seriously, Apple is a hardware company that sells nice-looking decently-performing 'luxury' hardware. And other than design, their big strength is integration. But was the iPhone any worse when Google provided its mapping service? Okay, I get that Google may have been restricting some mapping functionality in the iOS version - but chicken and egg? Apple was suing Android device makers.

      I guess the question is - do all of these companies: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon really need to field an entry in every new technology area imagineable in order to survive? I'd argue that Amazon is not going to be put out of business by anything that any of the others do (except - big maybe - Microsoft throwing enough money at Azure to hurt AWS). So, if they want to start making hardware - fine. But why can't they use Android like everybody else - and even provide hooks into Android assistant to facilitate buying stuff from Amazon? Likewise Apple's mobile hardware business would continue to do fine if they were to negotiate with Google to provide their maps for them - and possibly even provide the search intelligence for Siri.

      On the other hand, Google's search business faced a potential serious threat from Microsoft - back in the day when they were throwing a fortune into Bing. And the inevitable Microsoft entry into mobile would've surely become the Android of its day had Google not so completely beaten them to the punch. So they kind of had to go into mobile. Likewise, they kind of had to build the Chrome browser to make sure Bing wasn't the only choice for search (desktop still ruled at the time). But without Microsoft and it's goals of owning all software platforms, Google would've done fine without owning a mobile OS - or even a web browser. Of course, the same could be said for Microsoft's Office products without Google deciding to build a free web-based clone.

      So... is this just normal competition - or is there something special about tech and its famous network effects that makes it 'necessary' to fight it out over every corner of the industry? And if so, can anything be done about it?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    7. Re:Walled garden... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Okay if you must. But irrelevant in terms of what I'm talking about. By 'mobile', I mean 'today's mobile' that's gradually taking the lions share of internet traffic (that isn't Netflix) and determining what new internet services will catch on. i.e. iPhone and Android.

      But if we must discuss Microsoft's failure at 'today's mobile', it was in their assumption that all they needed to be successful was wait to see what others did that succeeded - and then copy it, counting on their ties to Windows / Exchange / Office to make them a success, however late they were to market.

      It turned out that what allowed the iPhone to really succeed was for enough of personal computing to have already migrated to the web - and for web standards to have become widely enough followed that the combination of Safari and Google Maps could essentially be the killer app for a smartphone with location awareness, but no 3rd party apps (yet). And prior to the iPhone, Safari alone probably wasn't enough to beat IE's proprietary web. It took Firefox - and then Chrome, both running on Windows to allow for web standards to win the day. If the web had remained 'the Microsoft/IE web', Microsoft might have had time to react to the iPhone - and Android might not have taken off at all.

      Then again, maybe the iPhone was compelling enough even without being able to run 'all of the web'. Remember that iPhones could never handle flash - and that didn't hold them back...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  2. So it is an Apple product? by Carewolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lame, late, and going to take over the world.

    1. Re:So it is an Apple product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, just like the iPod. Oh wait...

    2. Re:So it is an Apple product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, based on prior experience and these criticisms, I'm concluding that everybody with pretensions will have an Apple HomePod in their House within a year of release, smugly sanctimonious in their own utter superiority for choosing the much more elegant choice.

    3. Re:So it is an Apple product? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Informative

      “No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame”

      - Slashdot

    4. Re:So it is an Apple product? by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Have to agree with that, sadly. In any other industry it would take real courage to release something that's so far behind the competition and missing so many defacto standard features it's not even funny, let alone to charge a considerable premium for it as well. Fortunately for Apple they're in the IT industry and they still have enough die-hard fans that the HomePod is almost certainly going to sell out and generate billions of dollars for them (mostly in off-source tax havens, naturally). On the plus side, at least you can be reasonably sure that Apple isn't just going to hand over all of your data over to the NSA et al if they so much as glance in the general direction of the data centre - although given they will need access to it in order to process it and thus can't as easily hide behind user encryption I suspect they'll hand it all over without a fight upon receipt of a suitable court order.

      Still, I can't imagine they'd have ever released such a poor product under Steve Jobs' tenure though, especially after the supposedly lacklustre reception of the iPhone X, and don't think Apple's is going to be doing itself any favours if it continues to release half-finished products while letting other product lines stagnate. Even die-hard fans have their limits.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    5. Re: So it is an Apple product? by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that's with at least some form of court order or warrant, right? Unlike the data on the San Bernadino iPhone there's no way they can claim they don't have access to the data here as they require access to it, so they best users of such devices can hope for is that their vendor of choice will at least put up a token fight and insist on a court order before handing over the data. Apple does have a pretty good track record on that, unless like (for instance) Amazon who doesn't seem to fight *anything* on behalf of their users, let alone go to court for them or the principle of it.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re: So it is an Apple product? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I am sure the police enjoy the encrypted data dumps.

    7. Re:So it is an Apple product? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Of course, they were the inventors of the smart speaker. All other smart speakers are mere imitations, copycats hoping to reach the majesty that is the HomePod.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  3. But it still can... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...forward anything it hears to a permanent, centralized store to be forever associated with you and rescanned on a regular basis to mine new information. Just like any of these devices.

    1. Re:But it still can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No... that's actually THE big advantage of the home pod - Apple commits to NOT mining your data like this.

    2. Re:But it still can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until they get caught doing it. They also claimed not to be throttling phones. I guess apples marketing strategy of selling things to gullible people is working like gang busters.

  4. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think Apple's privacy claims are a joke just to cover up their inability to scale and provide personalized services, but... Don't I read on Slashdot every damn day how terrible it is to have "the cloud" snooping through all my shit? And now we're going to have a discussion about why HomePod sucks because it doesn't offer many of the features that require snooping through all my shit. What's it going to be?

  5. it was released...well just because by Danathar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This feels like Apple did this product simply to have something out there. I hate to say it, but Jobs would of NEVER allowed this product to go out unless it was as good or better than the competition.

    1. Re:it was released...well just because by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      but Jobs would of NEVER allowed this product to go out unless it was as good or better than the competition.

      So then how do you explain, for example, MobileMe that Jobs had to later apologize for? And that’s just one example out a number of failed and bad product launches under his watch.

    2. Re:it was released...well just because by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Yeah, Jobs was hardly perfect with product feature sets.

      Remember the iPod HiFi?
      Ping?
      MobileMe?
      G4 Cube?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:it was released...well just because by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Jobs would of NEVER allowed this product to go out unless it was as good or better than the competition.

      I know right. It's not like he released the original iPhone without the ability to copy/paste. Or the iPod that wouldn't play mp3 files.

    4. Re:it was released...well just because by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Jobs would of....

      My eyes. They burn.

    5. Re:it was released...well just because by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Cool story, but the claim was he “NEVER allowed this product to go out unless it was as good or better than the competition” and that is patently false. MobileMe being a prime example.

    6. Re:it was released...well just because by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong, but he wouldn't be satisfied until the Apple version was the best, for some acceptable-to-him definition of best. I don't get the feeling that Apple has that "strive for excellence" push behind it anymore. I sure didn't always agree with the Jobs definition of excellence (a one button mouse!), but he had *some* version of excellence, and he pushed people towards it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:it was released...well just because by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      So which version of excellence was MobileMe or the G4 Cube?

    8. Re:it was released...well just because by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      Maybe the sound quality is better than the competition.
      It is first and foremost a speaker after all.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    9. Re:it was released...well just because by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I can't really speak to that, because due to their EULA I stopped using Apple products. But one guess was that Apple is a big company, and Jobs didn't pay lots of attention to every product. (I've got to admit this is the first I've ever heard of MobileMe.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:it was released...well just because by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This feels like Apple did this product simply to have something out there. I hate to say it, but Jobs would of NEVER allowed this product to go out unless it was as good or better than the competition.

      Actually, this is exactly the kind of product Jobs would have released. He's got a long history of it from NeXt to AppleTV that never took off. He just got the marketing right on the Iphone at the right time. Had he been a year later when Android was out, the Iphone would be a footnote (Android was in development long before the Iphone).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. Tindal? by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I assume Tindal is the abomination resulted from the marriage of Tinder and Tidal? What does it do? You get to Tindal and chill when you swipe right on the same playlist?

  7. Not working with Android is by design... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

    Oddly, Ford parts don't fit into my Chevy either!

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

      ...Oddly, Ford parts don't fit into my Chevy either!...

      A better analogy would be if Fords could only drive on roads controled by Ford.

    2. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Except they'll probably partner with every company that doesn't have a smart speaker to control other home devices. This is petty and childish and one of the reasons why none of these devices has much of a future yet.

    3. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, bullshit. Both the Ford and Chevy will play the same radio stations, run on the same gas, and you know what, you can put Motorcraft plugs into a Chevy or a Delco alternator in a Ford, and they'll work just fine.

      You presented the equivalent of an air freshener and called them the same. Come talk to me about compatibility when you can freely swap motors and trannys. Until then, understand they're fucking competitors.

    4. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, bullshit. Both the Ford and Chevy will play the same radio stations, run on the same gas, and you know what, you can put Motorcraft plugs into a Chevy or a Delco alternator in a Ford, and they'll work just fine.

      You presented the equivalent of an air freshener and called them the same. Come talk to me about compatibility when you can freely swap motors and trannys. Until then, understand they're fucking competitors.

      There have been several occasions where Apple give up and open their walled garden when there's money to it. USB on iPod after exclusively going with firewire. iTunes and Safari on Windows.. They can, it's just for now they don't think they have to.

    5. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by dwillden · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Ford (Google) and Dodge(Amazon) brand pickup trucks can both carry cargo and pull trailers using standard 1 3/4 and 2 inch ball hitches . Their in dash infotainment centers can sync with any device over Bluetooth, and will play a wide variety of music from a broad selection of sources, radio, satellite and digital devices. Their engines and transmissions are different yet they are both able to do everything pickup truck owners expect such a vehicle to do.

      Meanwhile the new Chevrolet (Apple) "Pick-Up" Truck, has a 100lb 1 square ft cargo limit to it's "bed", and can only pull Chevy branded Camper trailers using Chevy "Hitch" technology. All other trailers are unable to connect to the new 3 inch pivoting cube hitch Chevy has invented. Inside the Chevy DASH (by SONY) will only sync with Chevy branded devices and will only play Classic Country music stations. It has Chevy's own engine and transmission and does basically nothing expected of any vehicle called a pickup truck.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    6. Re: Not working with Android is by design... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This reply is only compatible with Internet Explorer 6.0.

    7. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by ranton · · Score: 1

      You presented the equivalent of an air freshener and called them the same. Come talk to me about compatibility when you can freely swap motors and trannys. Until then, understand they're fucking competitors.

      Swapping motors and trannys between Ford and Chevy vehicles is more analogous to swapping out batteries and processors between Apple and Android phones. This is something no one is suggesting when complaining about the Apple walled garden. Stop with the strawman arguments.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    8. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by schweini · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that that Chevy Pick-Up can only be refueled using a Chevy (R) gas hose with a weird shape.

    9. Re:Not working with Android is by design... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Oddly, Ford parts don't fit into my Chevy either!

      Actually many will because they end up being bought off the shelf from other suppliers. Your oil filters aren't made by Chevy, they're made by Bosch or RYCO or someone else who makes oil filters and sells them to everyone from Ford to Porsche.

      However the correct analogy is that your Chevy wont travel on the same roads as a BMW... which is utter bollocks, no car manufacturer requires you to use their specific infrastructure... they cant even force you to use their dealer network for services. If any car manufacturer tried to act like Apple by restricting what you can do with your car they'd be out of business in a month or less.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  8. What it *CAN* do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    What it can do though, is priceless.

    -It comes in a nice shiny case
    -It comes in any color you like, so long as it's "Apple White"
    -It has an Apple Logo
    -It "just works"(tm), for a very limited definition of works.

  9. Totally wrong by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is AirPlay compatible, so it will work with any app that supports Airplay (including Android). It also works with iCloud Match. Works great, and sound great! You should buy two.

    1. Re:Totally wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is AirPlay compatible, so it will work with any app that supports Airplay (including Android). It also works with iCloud Match. Works great, and sound great! You should buy two.

      I was curious what the hell AirPlay is. Turns out it's a proprietary audio streaming method.
      Yeah, that's just what I want.

    2. Re:Totally wrong by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Does "work with" mean you can stream audio to it using Airplay, or does it mean that I can ask HomePod to play An Die Freude through Spotify? The latter is what people want and expect.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Totally wrong by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Nice! So it's a big, Bluetooth speaker! Hurray! We can listen to the HomePod - one at a time - until I have to run out to the store to get some more food, and then the party stops until I return and pair again. If only there was a way to to build a speaker that would stream music from the Internet itself so you didn't have to be tethered to your cell phone all the time...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  10. Not surprising by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 2

    This just continues the tradition of other, similar gimmicks: beyond grins and giggles, and party games, their usefulness is very limited. What they can do, you can, for the most part, do just as efficiently with a keyboard. On the other hand, there are lots of tasks that you can do very easily with a keyboard, that seem to be beyond their grasp. Finally, they understand very, very little - command any of them NOT to give you the weather forecast for the weekend, and it will, unhesitatingly, give you the weather forecast for the weekend. These things will one day no doubt be very useful; for the time being, they are just toys, and not very entertaining ones, at that.

    1. Re:Not surprising by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My wife bought me an Amazon Echo Dot for my birthday (despite me not only not wanting one but expressing uneasiness with having a speaker listening in on us all the time). Her opinion was that I could have it in the kitchen reading recipes to me while I cooked. Our usage of it was as follows:

      First Day: We asked a bunch of questions and started Googling funny things we could ask Echo. The kids got involved and had a blast asking her various things.

      Second Day - End of First Week: My wife used it to play music while I was at work.

      After First Week: It got unplugged and hasn't been used since. (Except, perhaps, for one or two times when we remembered about it, plugged it in, and used it for an hour or two before unplugging it again.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Not surprising by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Amazon Echo and Siri and things like that are novelty items that soon wear off. No one wants to talk to a computer. But thing like Airplay speakers (and equivalents) are great because you can stream music to them.

    3. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Amazon device is purely designed to get you to BUY more STUFF from Amazon.
      It is next to useless if you don't buy into the Amazon ideals, way of life and spend all your income, disposable or not with Bezos Inc.

    4. Re:Not surprising by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We have 3 Echo devices and 1 Google device in the house. They are all the dot/mini versions. The Echos are in the kitchen, garage, and bathroom and the Google device is in the bedroom. The Echo is a great companion in the kitchen for setting timers, doing unit conversions, and getting basic info from calendars and the weather. In the bathroom and garage it's just a nice way to control music hands free. The Google device is far more capable and I'd swap them all to Google except the three Amazon ones are plugged into real speakers via the headphone jack whereas the Google one stupidly leaves out this feature. As such we mostly just use the Google one to control the Chromecast plugged into the TV and occasionally for calendar/weather/traffic functions.

      As far as capabilities, using Alexa is like using DOS. Totally useless unless you know the right commands. Google's is like a voice search engine. You can ask it the most random of questions and it never ceases to amaze me in the answers it comes up with. It "understands" general questions better and allows you to refine and build upon previous queries. As far as the devices listening to bedroom activities (Google) and bathroom activities (Amazon), I could care less. Amazon can listen to me shit all day and I don't care and Google has far more embarrassing stuff on me in gmail and search history than any sounds I make in bed.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    5. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not true - Amazon works as an integration hub. I have smart home heating and lighting, it works fine as it is, but an Echo Dot adds a number of additional features - voice control being the most obvious, but also the ability to define groups of objects to control at a time. Even without using any "Amazon" services, it adds functionality.

    6. Re:Not surprising by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      No, I have my Siri use boiled down to a set of standard phone tasks, especially those that I'm often called upon to do in full sunlight. It's highly useful for things like that.

      If you're a user of Android Voice Command, you will tend to use it for the same tasks, plus "Run Malwarebytes!" a couple of times a day.

    7. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you had ONE apple watch (or other smart watch) you wouldn't need to stash a device every place you might want to control something. You can ask your apple watch to do ANY of the things you listed and get visual feedback in addition to audio feedback on your wrist as well. You can also opt to use the visual interface if you need to be quiet, rather than shouting at a device across the room.

      I have not used google voice recognition but Siri has been able to understand every one of the queries you mentioned, no matter how poorly worded. As always, there are exceptions but timers, unit conversions, calendars, weather, traffic, store hours, etc. are all simple voice recognition queries.

      These devices (Apple's included) seem like a giant solution in search of a problem. You can buy a decent stereo system and use your phone/watch to do everything all these devices do with the added bonus that a stereo system is "future proof" and is able to be upgraded. Buy a decent amp and some nice speakers and AirPlay or whatever the android version of AirPlay is. You already own the f'n processor/microphone in your phone.

      No need to sit additional microphones, processors and shitty speakers all over your house that you will presumably need to upgrade the *entire* package all the time rather than upgrading each piece of equipment as you see fit (only the phone, only the speakers, etc).

    8. Re:Not surprising by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I suspect Apple is limited in its ability to provide a generic question answering function because it doesn't have the internet data mining capabilities of Google and Amazon. Apple is hardware centric, Google is data centric, Amazon is somewhere in between.

    9. Re:Not surprising by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Machines are companions. Companion's definitions can include non-intelligent things. Heck a book can be a companion, a stuffed animal, etc...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    10. Re:Not surprising by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting I buy a $300 device to control new multi-hundred dollar wifi or bluetooth enabled speakers to replace my perfectly good stereo instead of a $30 Echo dot with an audio out jack? Yeah, you know how to make things future proof. One of the stereos I am using was manufactured before I was born and still works great. Apple doesn't often support devices longer than 5 years or so.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    11. Re:Not surprising by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      the three Amazon ones are plugged into real speakers via the headphone jack whereas the Google one stupidly leaves out this feature.

      How courageous of them. I'm sure it made it slimmer or something.

    12. Re:Not surprising by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I like being able to ask my home to change what I'm listening to in a given room, turn the lights on/off as needed, change the temperature, tell me what the weather will be in the afternoon (do I need to bring rain gear on my ride or not), and so on. Kind of convenient, really.

      As far as Airplay goes - what does it have that SONOS doesn't have? What does Airplay offer that a Bluetooth stream (AptX at that) doesn't offer?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:Not surprising by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I have found the same thing. While both the Echo and Google can answer questions, Google Home is far more capable. I've also found that the home automation of Google Home is superior to that of the Echo and both support my hardware (Universal Devices/Insteon & Nest). I buy a ton of stuff from Amazon but I just don't feel comfortable buying using a voice assistant because I want to see what I'm buying. In terms of understanding language, Google is far superior as it understands context. For example, if I ask what is the closest pizza parlor it will give me the closest one whereas if I ask for nearby ones it will list nearby ones. Alexa just lists the nearby ones.

      Google is also much better about returning real results from various websites, having scoured the web and understanding the content of those sites. When it answers, it will cite a website and give a summary of what is said on the website.

      Best of all, I asked both "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?" Google gave the correct answer, 42, whereas Alexa gave 54. Both support shopping through them, though Google is more like Alibaba than Amazon, using others to fulfill the orders. Google also integrates well with my Chromecast. I'm sure Alexa integrates with FireTV, but I don't have that. My only complaint about Google is the same as yours, I wish it had an audio output jack.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    14. Re:Not surprising by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

      >>> and Google has far more embarrassing stuff on me in gmail and search history than any sounds I make in bed

      Search results can be easily fabricated, your voice and speech patterns not so much. The evidentiary value of voice is much higher than that of typed text.

  11. Haters will Hate, Lovers will Love. by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I never got into the smart speaker technology anyways. I just never liked talking to machines.
    But in general for tech involving apple I see the following.
    Haters: They judge how apple does on all the things it doesn't do well. The things it does do well are just not important.
    Lovers: They judge on what Apple does on things it does do well. The things it fails are are just not that important.

    Both sides are just giving an emotional reaction to the product. You can be an Apple Sheep and Love all things apple however that isn't any more idiotic then being an Apple Troll who hates everything with that Apple Logo on it.

    (You can replace "Apple" with other brands, and the point is still the same, however currently Apple is sparking a lot of emotion)
     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Haters will Hate, Lovers will Love. by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The world isn't black and white: there are also those that are not in the Apple garden, and have no intention of going in there, but see Apple as a useful foil to help keep the likes of Dell, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. at least slightly honest, competetive and innovative. I might not have or want any of Apple's products in my life, but I don't want them to slowly fade slowly back into the relative niche obscurity they had in the late 1990s and early 2000s either. While that's obviously not going to happen any time soon thanks to their huge cash reserves, launching technically lame and overpriced products compared to the competition like this are not exactly going to help.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Haters will Hate, Lovers will Love. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      The world isn't black and white: there are also those that are not in the Apple garden, and have no intention of going in there, but see Apple as a useful foil to help keep the likes of Dell, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. at least slightly honest, competetive and innovative. I might not have or want any of Apple's products in my life, but I don't want them to slowly fade slowly back into the relative niche obscurity they had in the late 1990s and early 2000s either. While that's obviously not going to happen any time soon thanks to their huge cash reserves, launching technically lame and overpriced products compared to the competition like this are not exactly going to help.

      Agreed. I'm no Apple fan by any means, but I recognise that they have been a force for innovation in the industry. (And I would argue that the existence of competition is good for Apple too, do we think iOS would have half of the features it has without Android around?) The last thing we should want, whether you buy their stuff or not, is them losing their way. Unfortunately that seems to be what's happening.

    3. Re:Haters will Hate, Lovers will Love. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Nearly all products sold are an attempt to cash in. However there are further questions to be asked.
      I still think this is a flop product. I haven't seen much interest in Apple Smart Speakers in general. And this has failed to impress because I am unable to find any real advantage compared to others, for the cost. But why is it so much more. Apple doesn't normally just grossly over price their products, it is usually on par with other devices with similar specs.

      My only theory, is that your data isn't being sold like on Amazon and Google. So the cost of the device includes the full cost of the device, and you are not selling your privacy for it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  12. Apple FOMO by cloud.pt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The HomePod exists solely as a placeholder product for Apple to position themselves in the home assistant market, for the large pool of buyers already commited to the Apple brand - not much unlike the Apple TV, the Mac Mini, the MacBook Air, among others. Apple has a history of taking long to get in the game because when they do get in the game, they have their name to make it sell, then just market that specific characteristic as being reason for everything else being better. "When we decide to enter a segment, we do it with the best product/feature polish available".

    The only difference being that, this time around, it is oh-so-much easier to make the device un-interoperable with third parties. The only interaction with such a device is sound - people just won't notice many of the flaws, on a system which's user experience is minimized to spoken or aloud interaction. or to a level, will excuse them much more easily. It's a lot like the Kindle Fire devices - make one device for exacty 2 or 3 features (buy ebook, read ebook, keep it closed to Amazon's ecosystem for experience/quality assurance "purposes", which are simply euphemisms for monetization), and make those solid enough so you can tell people they can do them instead of using "brand X" of the same feature. Maybe some time after you can add a browser or other non-trivialities that should have been there in the first place, but were simply too expensive or would take too long to produce. Macs moving to Intel and finally supporting Windows comes to mind...

    1. Re:Apple FOMO by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      Typo: I mentioned the Fire wrong initially, I meant the original Kindle (the one we're both referring to I believe).

      The Kindle had to have PDF support because a big chunk of the e-reader bound consumer base would also use it for scholarly articles, which are available from a panoplia of distributors, and it's a market that falls way off the Amazon book business. Just like Apple opens the iPhone to some Google/Microsoft/etc services, they gave way to this to make it somewhat marketable.

      But the Kindle has low-to-no other functionality as an Amazon e-book and generic pdf reader, and it doesn't have some niceties for PDFs as it has for Amazon's formats. Other features, like their unlimited-forever 3g connectivity were for Amazon services and purchases exclusively, and even that was limited to countries where the Amazon book business actually has a pulse. You don't get an API for cool apps and widgets like, say, Android nor you have conveniences like bluetooth or a camera for conferencing, or HUMONGOUS storage for non-text media. They made a simple yet expensive device, and made it pretty much not worth the asking price unless you were really using that Amazon books, so this way it would mostly be sold to people who would use those services. Maybe 10 or 20% of buyers have completely neglected the Amazon book store, while some that initially planned to do so likely engaged in Amazon book purchasing, and this kind of client aquisition is a serious benefit to whatever they lost on Kindle cost-to-market.

  13. classic apple by nimbius · · Score: 1

    A four-hundred dollar appliance heralded as a breakthrough on apples site but that cant interface with anything outside its ecosystem and struggles to deliver basic services its competitors have all managed to perfect by now. Comes with paradoxical features like "7 tweeters" and "deep bass" but without boom?

    its also making its debut 3 years after Alexa, so does this mean Apple is officially wading into microsofts 'day late dollar short' release schedule?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:classic apple by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The next version, which will come out next year will tout amazing new features - all of which will have been available in other products for years, but which Apple will pretend are revolutionary new ideas they came up with. Apple fans who bought Version 1 will line up to buy Version 2 so they don't get left behind.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:classic apple by thevirtualcat · · Score: 1

      If my mod points hadn't expired yesterday, I would have used them on this.

    3. Re:classic apple by Pyramid · · Score: 1

      1) Pedantic response
      2) If it doesn't provide basic features because of policy, why does it exist?
      3) Pedantic response
      4) If only there was a way to provide a great soundstage with 1 tweeter, thus avoiding comb filter problems. I'm sure it'll be much better in the future. Of course, that's how technology works - not much of a sales pitch.
      5) Yes, they waded into the streaming device market, look how they own it. Roku got obliterated by the Apple TV, right. They waded into providing basic features like USB on their devices - look how they own that market. iOS devices swamp the Android market? Uh, no.

      Yes, ignore the features people want and focus on one that's not hard to get right, audio fidelity. And then charge a premium. Audiophiles aren't replacing their Hi-Fi with these anyway...

      --
      ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
    4. Re:classic apple by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Can a company be narcissistic?

      If they had any interest in serving their customers, Version 2 could fix those problems in a few months by licensing Google Assistant - freeing Apple to concentrate on providing the glorious speaker and decor that Apple customers would want.

      Google would probably be fine with allowing them to design integrations between the Assistant and their ecosystem that only work on their devices as long as Apple continues to use Google Search on all of their products and drops the requirement for the billions in payments.

    5. Re:classic apple by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      1) Pedantic response
      2) If it doesn't provide basic features because of policy, why does it exist?
      3) Pedantic response
      4) If only there was a way to provide a great soundstage with 1 tweeter, thus avoiding comb filter problems. I'm sure it'll be much better in the future. Of course, that's how technology works - not much of a sales pitch.
      5) Yes, they waded into the streaming device market, look how they own it. Roku got obliterated by the Apple TV, right. They waded into providing basic features like USB on their devices - look how they own that market. iOS devices swamp the Android market? Uh, no.

      Yes, ignore the features people want and focus on one that's not hard to get right, audio fidelity. And then charge a premium. Audiophiles aren't replacing their Hi-Fi with these anyway...

      1. Incorrect initial assertion.

      2. You consider them "basic functions". Apparently, Apple thinks you have a phone in your pocket for that.

      3. You mean "Correcting your limited understanding of the terms-of-art." Obviously, whenever you don't know something, those who do are "Pedantic". BTW, what sort of a response would have suited Your Highness?

      4. Comb filter effects will exist anytime there are time-delays. IOW, they WILL exist, even outdoors in an open field. Fortunately, your brain is quite good at rejecting stationary comb filters. The "beam forming" is simply a way to make the sound-field less "spotty" by using "controlled interference", like with Phased-Array antenna systems. That is as far as I go on the subject, unfortunately. Perhaps you know more than I do on this.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      5. They have never wanted to "own" markets where the main feature of devices is a relentless race to the bottom, like with Roku and Android. And how do you know what "people" want? You only know what YOU want. Apple's sales figures would seem to belie your alleged knowledge. Yes, there are more Android shitphones sold (or given away); but in the Apple price range of phones, they actually DO "own" that market-segment. Same thing with Roku. If you want a STB with a HORRIBLE user interface and HORRIBLE voice recognition and NO Apps, then by ALL means get a Roku box. And if "Audio Fidelity" was such a snap to get to happen in a device the size of the HomePod, why oh why haven't others done it so well? Why did Sonos IMMEDIATELY slash the price of their Speakers the VERY DAY the HomePod became available? Yeah, THEY know what's up!

      https://www.macrumors.com/2018...

      And as far as "audiophiles" not replacing their Martin Logans for HomePods, of COURSE not! But they WILL be having them in their bedrooms, kitchens, home-offices, garages, etc., and other places they just want to listen to some fairly-good-sounding tunes with no muss and no fuss. And the "fairly-good-sounding" part is something the other guys HAVE missed, and missed BADLY. Even Sonos has all SORTS of problems with syncing stereo pairs, unstable WiFi connections, software updates, etc., and "sound" is ALL they do!

    6. Re:classic apple by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      1. False. The price will be $349 to $382.02 (depending upon where you live).
      2. False. If you believe Apple does not use your data for its own needs - you're a fool. But you're the FakeTimCook, so...
      3. False. "Deep bass" implies sub-bass. That would be significant output below 40 Hz which this does NOT have (a good acquaintance of mine designed that woofer). "Boom" is actually deep bass, as the typical boom car is tuned around 33 Hz.
      4. False. Imaging clues are not in the high frequencies, our imagining is dominated between ~700 Hz and 3 kHz, by ITD and IAD effects.
      5. True! You got one! But only because there are a legion of Apple Acolytes like you that would buy anything from Apple because Apple.
      6. (Apple killed SONOS) False. What happens if you are streaming music at home, then you head out? The music stops with Airplay, meaning your wife/significant other must now pair to the device and stream. SONOS streams for you - the smarts are in the speaker. It doesn't use the Bluetooth speaker model of Airplay, it makes the speaker itself play the source -meaning you don't even need a phone to control it (Amazon Echo, Google Home, tablets, etc.)

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:classic apple by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      1. False. The price will be $349 to $382.02 (depending upon where you live).

      2. False. If you believe Apple does not use your data for its own needs - you're a fool. But you're the FakeTimCook, so...

      3. False. "Deep bass" implies sub-bass. That would be significant output below 40 Hz which this does NOT have (a good acquaintance of mine designed that woofer). "Boom" is actually deep bass, as the typical boom car is tuned around 33 Hz.

      4. False. Imaging clues are not in the high frequencies, our imagining is dominated between ~700 Hz and 3 kHz, by ITD and IAD effects.

      5. True! You got one! But only because there are a legion of Apple Acolytes like you that would buy anything from Apple because Apple.

      6. (Apple killed SONOS) False. What happens if you are streaming music at home, then you head out? The music stops with Airplay, meaning your wife/significant other must now pair to the device and stream. SONOS streams for you - the smarts are in the speaker. It doesn't use the Bluetooth speaker model of Airplay, it makes the speaker itself play the source -meaning you don't even need a phone to control it (Amazon Echo, Google Home, tablets, etc.)

      1. Who cares?

      2. I said nothing about data mining. Neither did the GP. Learn to read.

      3. Your "definitions" are laughable. Plus, I would actually be surprised if the HomePod's woofer/enclosure combo is rasonably flat much below 50-60 Hz; so I would imagine it doesn't have a whole lot of response below 40 Hz. I could be mistaken; but I just don't see a sufficient Transmission Line or ported enclosure to extend the usable frequency range, despite the reasonably large Xmax of the driver. But then, neither does most pop music go much below 40 Hz, except heavy electronica. Afterall, kick drum centers around 63 Hz, 4 string bass bottoms out at 40 Hz, and 6 string guitar at 82 Hz. So, unless you listen to a lot of electronic music, or stuff with deep synthesizer bass lines, or stuff played on instruments like Chapman Stick or the Warr guitar, getting down to 40 Hz puts you in good stead with a lot of small bookshelf speakers that call themselves "HiFi". Certainly not subwoofer territory; but definitely listenable for a secondary system.

      4. "Imaging clues" start not too much above 250 Hz, and go all the way up. The trick is, I don't know what the "tweeters" are crossed over at; but I assume it is fairly low, (likely no higher than around 1 kHz) since a woofer with that floppy of a surround (which is the only way to get that kind of excursion) is likely to not have good response into the midrange region, despite its small diameter. So you're likely full of shit. Again.

      6. Never said "Apple killed Sonos." I don't think that will happen; but they ARE obviously a bit concerned. By the way, there is nothing to suggest that "the music stops" when the "owner" leaves the house. In fact, I read that all people in a household will be able to use the music functions, and not just as an AirPlay speaker. If you have actual PROOF to the contrary, I would actually like to see it. And you don't need a phone to control/stream to the HomePod, either. It has a control-panel on the topside.

    8. Re:classic apple by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      1. You do. You claimed the other poster was wrong with his $400 claim; he was about as correct as you were - in the range, but not accurate. If you're going to attack for being incorrect - well, you're incorrect as well.

      2. Integrations take nothing, and no need to know account authorization. SONOS is able to do it, I guess Apple isn't as smart.

      3. Sub bass typically is 60 Hz to 20 Hz; deep bass usually refers to sub bass. Sorry. BTW, in small enclosures, ported or TL are the WRONG way to go. Sealed will gain you more output down deep - especially where these types of products tend to be placed (near walls and corners).
      As far as the excursion goes, that is not linear Xmax at all; it's Xmech, which is mechanical throw. The Klippel Xmag/Xsus would be closer to about 6mm one way. Decent, but short of the SONOS Play:1 woofer.
      NOTE: if you want to get into a tech discussion of audio, I'm all for it - I'll teach you a few things, if you're willing to learn. I guarantee you've heard my work before, either in the consumer space (SONOS, Polk, Infinity, Genesis, many more), pro space (Mackie, Event, KRK, EAW, many more), or recording space (Blue, Rode, AEA, many many more).

      4. Imaging is dominated by 700 Hz to 3 kHz, and with an array as presented (in which the "tweeters" are really mid-tweeters, as they cross over around ~400 Hz) you will not gain decent image at all. Image localization is dominated by IADs in the ~700 Hz to 1500 Hz range, and then as your perception shifts to ITDs from 1500 Hz to 3000 Hz. Cues above and below exist, but are secondary to those in two critical octaves: 750 Hz to 3000 Hz. Given that ITDs in the 1500 Hz to 4 kHz range are heavily impacted by the transfer function of the pinna and your facial structure, having a SINGLE SPEAKER create all the sound will result in poor imaging, no matter what you try to do. You cannot simulate ITDs without spaced elemants. And since the HomePod does NOT allow stereo pairs...

      6. "Apple has just about wiped out Sonos' entire business model" - provably false. SONOS' central promise is to listen to all the music on the Earth, in any room, in any combination. Apple lets you listen to THEIR music only, in one room at a time, in no combinations. It doesn't address a single feature of SONOS' central product offerings.
      As far as the music stopping when you leave - start an Airplay from your phone. Then take your phone down the block. What happens to the playback? Oh, someone else can restart it from their phone - but that's not the same as SONOS, where the speaker itself streams from the Internet - not from your phone. Why have an Apple proprietary "Bluetooth like" operation, when you can have something much better?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  14. iTunes Home Sharing? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    I've been waiting to hear that it isn't compatible with iTunes Home Sharing either (streaming from iTunes on your LAN). They have already created an in-home streaming solution, but they would be the first to allow it from a smart speaker. Everyone requires your music to be on a cloud service.

    It's just one more nail in the coffin before it even hits a ship date.

    1. Re:iTunes Home Sharing? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      I've been waiting to hear that it isn't compatible with iTunes Home Sharing either (streaming from iTunes on your LAN). They have already created an in-home streaming solution, but they would be the first to allow it from a smart speaker. Everyone requires your music to be on a cloud service.

      It's just one more nail in the coffin before it even hits a ship date.

      It is AirPlay compatible. Therefore it is compatible with iTunes (including your local music Library and Apple Music), AppleTV, Macs, iPads, several AV Receivers, etc.

    2. Re:iTunes Home Sharing? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You can't control that by voice command. Stop with the false equivalence.

    3. Re:iTunes Home Sharing? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      You can't control that by voice command. Stop with the false equivalence.

      Honestly, I haven't looked into that aspect very closely, sorry if I am non-informed on the subject.

  15. Carewolf could mess up a wet dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I believe the phrase you are looking for is "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. "

    Those are worship words handed down by the forefathers in the mists of time.

    1. Re:Carewolf could mess up a wet dream by lgw · · Score: 1

      Awesome - complete with a BSD first post, and troll posts exploiting the page-widening bug.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  16. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery by jabberw0k · · Score: 4, Informative

    and always-on Microphones are now "Speakers" -- huzzah.

  17. it just works? by guygo · · Score: 1

    But it just works... all by itself. More non-genius from Tim's boys.

  18. On the bright side, no South Park jokes by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Since it won't react to other people's voices, there is no way for South Park to play jokes on it.

    1. Re:On the bright side, no South Park jokes by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Since it won't react to other people's voices, there is no way for South Park to play jokes on it.

      You need to RTFA (sorry about that). It reacts to everybody's voice. It can't discriminate among different voices, so there's no way to keep it from reacting to everyone. Including South Park.

  19. Where's the slashdot skepticism? by Arkham · · Score: 1

    "Business Insider" isn't a real news source. This is just some hack opinion piece from someone who has never used the product.

    I'm not getting a HomePod (I'm invested in Sonos speakers) but I suspect that Apple's speaker will work great with Apple devices in the Apple ecosystem and will sound better than anything else on the market. If that's what you want, then buy it, and if not, don't.

    My Sonos One speakers all have Alexa support, and I keep it turned off on all of them. I hate the idea of something listening at all times in my house. Surely I can't be the only one?

    --
    - Vincit qui patitur.
  20. Re:Well you know that old Apple saying... by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

    "It just works."

    Yeeeeeaaaaah.....

    It works. We just need to redefine what "work" is

  21. It have a lot of courage!! by Eloking · · Score: 3, Funny

    5. HomePod can't hook up to another device using an auxiliary cord.

    It have a lot of courage!|

    --
    Elok
  22. Apple is rarely first and not perfect by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This feels like Apple did this product simply to have something out there.

    Probably true but the real question is how fast they will iterate and improve it. The original iPhone was a game changer but the first version didn't include a lot of features their competition had at the time. It succeeded on the improvements of later versions. There were MP3 players that were better than the iPod when it was introduced. Apple rarely is first into a market but they usually come with something decent and then keep improving it until it gains major market share. I recommend people never buy version 1.0 of a new Apple product because it takes them a few tries to work out the kinks even if they have the broad strokes more or less right.

    hate to say it, but Jobs would of NEVER allowed this product to go out unless it was as good or better than the competition.

    Jobs did exactly that with some regularity. Apple products are generally good quality but often are not best in class and more than a few have been quite deficient. Apple has some big hits but they aren't anywhere close to a perfect batting average even when Jobs was in charge.

    1. Re:Apple is rarely first and not perfect by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Probably true but the real question is how fast they will iterate and improve it.

      Siri came out first but improved very slowly, quickly being eclipsed by Google Assistant and Alexa.

      Apple Maps is another good example. Even if they hadn't started from way behind, it's incredible how far Google has opened up the gap between them. All those building models you see on Google Maps? AI looking at satellite photos for the most part. Accurate locations for businesses and homes? AI reading signs and door numbers from Street View.

      And when you look at how Apple does improve these products, it's mostly by paying other companies to do it for them. They don't do their own map data, they buy it in. They don't provide intelligence and web data for Siri, they take it from Bing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Apple is rarely first and not perfect by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Hey AmiMoJo, remember how I adopted the sig "The one straight white male in new Star Trek will be portrayed as evil or incompetent" back before Star Trek Discovery premiered? You know, because he was the only straight white male on an SJW show, and so I knew that he would ultimately have to be revealed as either evil or incompetent--because SJW's, as much as they would deny it, really HATE straight white males.

      Remember how an enlightened SJW like yourself corrected my foolish misinformed view back in October, responding to my sig, with:

      By the way, your signature makes you look silly now. Your prediction was way off the mark.

      Then remember how I replied with:

      LOL. Keep watching, You'll be eating those words soon.

      Well, go watch the latest two episodes. And enjoy your meal.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  23. I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my home by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But not when they are connected back to the mother ships.

    Stand alone, fire walled, etc. NO communication back to anyone one. No logs, except those kept locally.

    Unfortunately, I believe these all still rely heavily on the Hardware and Databases back at the mother ships.

    Unless these devices can stand on their own or there is some iron clad Federal regulation on privacy of data (with jail time for violators), not happening in my home.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  24. PFFT by circularWaffle · · Score: 1

    For that price? What a piece of crap!

  25. How is this news? by jonesy16 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why anyone cares. Apple is clearly marketing this against products like those from Bose and Sonos, not a sub-$100 echo / echo dot / google home. They clearly spent time on a product that they thought would have great sound quality to compliment their Amazon Music service. Sure, it will probably connect to more services over time and become more useful for the home automation / information services that many have come to respect the Echo / Google Home products for, but I don't think that's their short game. Apple's products have always been about the not-so-subtle-hand-in-your-back push toward using only their services, so I'm not surprised they don't integrate well with Pandora/Spotify, etc. However, it also doesn't do it any worse than their current system (start playback -> set playback to airplay compatible device -> done). They will sell plenty of these, don't waste your time comparing it to products half its price, and don't buy one if it doesn't suit your needs.

    I have 5 Echo products and love them, but they could still sound way better than they currently do, but I've also spent less than $500 to have devices throughout my house, so I can't complain about what I've achieved for the price.

    And really, who asks their smart device about their calendar?

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by michiganbob · · Score: 2

    Then these clearly are not products targeted at you. All the best functionality of these devices relies on communication back to the "mother ships". Asking for the latest news, weather, sports scores, streaming music, etc... Explain to me how something firewalled on your local network would be able to do any of that.

    It's just wearisome to hear these same comments trotted out every time a smart speaker is discussed on the site.

  28. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    How do you expect these devices to do anything useful without being connected to anything? This is what they are. Google voice command. And unless you take them off the internet entirely, you'll never really know if they are phoning home (or the NSA) or not.

  29. Dear god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You'd think Slashdotters would be tired of being wrong about Apple products ;-)

    iPod - "Lame, Nomad does it better"
    iPhone - "Lame, no physical keyboard"
    iPad - "Lame, no file system"
    AirPods - "Lame, look like toothbrushes in your ears"
    HomePod - "Lame, can't order new sheets"

    $350 is more than worth it for a high-quality bluetooth speaker. I'll listen to music 100x more often than I'll buy Tide Pods.

  30. Siri vs Ok Google vs Alexa by Hadlock · · Score: 2

    I have a Pixel, she has a recent iPhone model. Very occasionally we still ask siri a question, to see if she's up to answering a question, but mostly to see if anything has improved. Basically we use Ok Google for everything.
     
    We've always been really impressed with Ok Google's question answering capabilities, from odd ways to ask the weather to the color of a specific type of bird, cooking instructions etc etc. Siri just chokes on 99% of questions. Alexa will generally get the words right and tell you it can't search for XYZ but at least it gets that right.
     
    At this point we would consider a google or possibly an Alexa device (my girlfriend likes it's integration with our Fire TV, amazon orders, etc) but we both agree that Siri is Completely Fucking Useless. If we're waiting for an uber to go home some times we'll amuse ourselves to see how badly Siri mangles our request. Siri's basically just a first generation toy, whereas Ok Google is almost to the point where you could go voice-only for performing 95% of your daily searches. Alexa fits somewhere in the middle but closer to google than apple's offerings.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Siri vs Ok Google vs Alexa by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      With Google Assistant available on the iPhone, is Siri still getting use? Most I know are happily using Google Assistant.

  31. Things it CAN do... by samkass · · Score: 1

    Be a speaker. Seriously, itâ(TM)s way, way better at this than any of the other options. If thatâ(TM)s not important to you, then this product isnâ(TM)t for you.

    --
    E pluribus unum
    1. Re:Things it CAN do... by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      For the same price, you can purchase two Sonos speakers that integrate nicely with either Dots or Google Minis (in the near future) and deliver awesome sounds to two rooms with an assistant. If you prefer the single device approach JBL and others have excellent speakers with Google Assistant either on the market or coming shortly. This is what Apple should have done if they wanted to deliver a great speaker - license the Assistant.

    2. Re:Things it CAN do... by Camembert · · Score: 1

      Actually initial reviews suggest that the sound quality is very noticeably better than sonos.

    3. Re:Things it CAN do... by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Hard to know. I thought I heard they weren't supporting groups yet. Without proving the ability to synchronize play between rooms within the ability of the human ear to detect, a comparison can't be made to Sonos.

  32. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by sycodon · · Score: 2

    Talking to Apple, logging queries, etc., is not the same as querying the web.

    If I could ask a question or have some task performed and there be no record what-so-ever at the "mother ship", then I'd go for it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  33. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by Teun · · Score: 2

    They could switch on the lights, change the temperature etc. without leaving traces outside of the home.
    You should be able to set up DuckDuckGo as your search engine without the Q&A's being read by the manufacturer.
    With proper (I.e. non USofA) privacy regulation this could all be feasible, you could even order a pizza or dildo with only you and the seller keeping records.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  34. They're great for disability support by Medievalist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Amazon Echo and Siri and things like that are novelty items that soon wear off. No one wants to talk to a computer.

    You're assuming nobody is handicapped in any way, and forgetting that people have strokes, aneurysms and car accidents.

    A partially paralyzed auto accident survivor facing a grueling years-long recovery process is usually very willing to talk to a computer. Not least for streaming music - "Alexa, play 'Live from the Mars Hotel'" - while engaged in difficult or humiliating processes essential to therapy.

    I wish these things had been available while my father was in the last stages of Parkinson's disease. Amazon Alexa would have enriched his life immeasurably.

  35. Obligatory ... by cristiroma · · Score: 2

    But does it blend?

  36. I miss Steve by lylefile · · Score: 1

    You can bet he would never let garbage like this see the light of day.

  37. Don't cherry pick by sjbe · · Score: 1

    And when you look at how Apple does improve these products, it's mostly by paying other companies to do it for them.

    That depends on the product and you have cherry picked a couple of examples convenient to your point and left out the ones that aren't. Not saying your point isn't valid but I disagree with the word "mostly" in your argument. It might be a fair argument that Apple falls behind when they do outsource instead of building products in house. When Apple gets it right they tend to REALLY get it right. But they don't have a perfect batting average and their record for integrating purchased technology is a bit spotty like most big companies.

  38. Apple's new slogan by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    They can take Target's slogan and turn it around.

    Expect less, pay more!

  39. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by unrtst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These all do the speech recognition in the cloud at the moment (AFAIK). That part will need done there until it can be moved to a higher-powered local device, and it's debatable whether or not that's completely feasible today (I think it probably is, since I could do speech recognition in realtime on an old 200MHz x86 cpu, though the current state of the art is better).

    That said, none of items you noted require communication through a single broker (ie. Amazon's Alexa sending all queries through Alexa; Google sending all queries through their service; etc etc).

    I'm most familiar with Amazon's Alexa. It already has "skills", which are 3rd party things that it can tie into. The skills get the text version of the request, and reply with their own string of text, which gets sent back down to the speaker and spoken. If the speech-to-text was done locally, that communication to and from the skills could be done directly. Skills could be created for each of those items you noted (news, weather, sports scores, music, etc)... there are already more advances skills in place, so that's not the issue.

    The only hurdle right now is that the speech-to-text is done server-side ("in the cloud"). That is by design, and at least partially to aid in lock in (prevents the devices from being used without their service). Since that's done on the server, managing all the 3rd party skills and that communication is also far easier to do server-side, so that's how it was implemented... but that's just a side effect, and is not a direct limitation.

  40. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

    It's not the connection to the mother ship that's the problem. It's the mother ship's insistence on saving every interaction that you have with it - whether it improves the service or not. They don't even know what they want it for - they just figure that they might want it in the future. While I might not pay for an ad-free life, I might consider paying for an anonymous one. Where my online interactions, if saved at all, are only ever saved in aggregate form - to improve the overall service without intruding on my privacy.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  41. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

    A connection to the mother ship is the only reason those devices exist. your use case for them is pretty much just ancillary to their goals. (machine learning training and advertising)

  42. The other devices do too much by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    Except for not being able to take an AUX input, the HomePod is basically exactly what I want. I don't want something to answer my questions or order things off of Amazon for me. If I wanted those things, I'd've already bought an Echo or Google Home.

    I want a nice speaker with good quality that plays my music library. Currently, I have wired speakers set up in my kitchen, and I plug my phone or iPad in when I want to listen to music or podcasts. Add in the ability to set a timer and I'm basically set.

    I will be the first to admit that sometimes even Apple doesn't understand minimalism properly: they either go too far (hi MacBook keyboards), or they throw in way too much (hi Touchbar MacBook Pro). I think the HomePod is serendipitously the device that I want the most (again, excepting the lack of an external input), and not because Apple designed it to be effectively minimal, just because they couldn't get all the features that I plan to ignore in by the time it ships.

    I already have a phone and iPad that wake up and answer questions when I talk to them and I honestly don't need yet another. I think there's a market for a high quality speaker that integrates with the rest of your Apple stuff, and if Apple can keep their eyes on the ball and not throw the privacy angle out the window, they might just have a hit on their hands.

  43. Re:Things nobody cares about by tsqr · · Score: 1

    2) Recognize other people's voices? Seriously? The last thing you want to do is allow other people and their lousy musical taste to pick the music during a party.

    From TFA: While HomePod will answer to anyone's commands [emphasis added], it isn't capable of recognizing individual voices. This means you can't set up user profiles or tailor the device to different members of a household.

    So, The "last thing you want to do" is exactly what HomePod does.

  44. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by scdeimos · · Score: 1

    These all do the speech recognition in the cloud at the moment (AFAIK). That part will need done there until it can be moved to a higher-powered local device, and it's debatable whether or not that's completely feasible today (I think it probably is, since I could do speech recognition in realtime on an old 200MHz x86 cpu, though the current state of the art is better).

    If they're anything like Siri then they do the speech recognition locally and forward the transcript to the cloud for natural language processing (and AmaAppGoogl intrusion into your lives). You can see this for yourself - ask Siri anything and it displays the transcript of your request on the screen while asking the cloud what to do about it.

    Devices could also do the natural language processing themselves (one could argue that requires less computing power than speaker-indepedent speech recognition) except that the vendors like the lock-in (and intrusion into your lives).

  45. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by unrtst · · Score: 1

    If they're anything like Siri then they do the speech recognition locally ... You can see this for yourself - ask Siri anything and it displays the transcript of your request on the screen while asking the cloud what to do about it.

    Seeing the text on screen does not mean that it does the speech-to-text locally. It might, but it could have sent the audio out and got back the text and displayed it. Furthermore, what Siri (or OK Google or Amazon Alexa) does on your phone/tablet/computer does not mean that's what it does on the smart speaker.

    FWIW, the Amazon Echo sends the audio to Amazon, as can be seen in packet captures on the network. AFAICT, they're all designing them that way, such that the speaker hardware cost is kept to a minimum (very low hardware requirements). I'm not sure what's known about the Apple HomePod specs yet, but it's 5.5lb and $350, so it could easily have the speech processing on board.

  46. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by Watter · · Score: 1

    I love it when people don't want their devices to connect back to the mothership.. and yet want the ultimate mothership (the federal government) to be in charge of that.

  47. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by exomondo · · Score: 1

    The only hurdle right now is that the speech-to-text is done server-side ("in the cloud"). That is by design, and at least partially to aid in lock in (prevents the devices from being used without their service).

    The main reason for doing that is the ability to learn from the interactions to not only improve the speech recognition but also about understanding the intent of the language so you don't just have a canned set of speech commands to say. Sure, as you said the speech recognition component of basic commands is relatively easy (insofar as it has been done many times for a long time) and can be done on device but the understanding of the intent and range of language used to express that intent is the more complicated piece. There's a very important difference between working what you said (speech-to-text) and what you meant.

  48. Re:Open the pod bay doors... by grub · · Score: 1

    I read /. at -1.
    Years ago I compared it to driving through CrackTown in a convertible with the roof open and being stuck in first gear.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  49. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    Stand alone, fire walled, etc. NO communication back to anyone one. No logs, except those kept locally.

    Most of the random questions you ask are answered using search results. Most of the other questions (i.e. weather, "skills") can't feasibly work without connectivity for reasons ranging from not enough CPU power on the speaker to needing live information to needing to communicate with other devices.

  50. Re:Yeah, but no. by AaronW · · Score: 1

    I didn't have to create groups with Google Home. I have both Home and Echo. With Home I just say, "turn off all the lights in the living room" and it does so, or I ask, "What lights are on?" and it tells me. When setting up the Home it asks what room each device is in and automatically groups them. I also have the Echo but find myself using Google Home much more frequently because it generally works better.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  51. Does anyone know an Airplay transmitter? by Camembert · · Score: 1

    If this sounds as good as nearly all initial reviews mention, I can imagine buying a pair to replace my ok but bulky floorstanding speakers.
    However it looks like it can only handle Airplay for external input, next to streaming apple music directly. So that is ok for my apple tv for netflix (I think), ios devices and mac.
    But I also would like to stream the sound of tv, blu ray and eventually a game consol for my kids through them. It looks like the only way to make it work would be with a gadget that converts analog or hdmi sound from my AV preamp to an airplay stream. An Airport express will NOT work since it is an airplay receiver. I can’t find such a device or raspberry pi project. Conceivably i think that with some software one could use a mac mini to capture the audio and then stream it but that would really be overkill. I don’t want to switch on and connect my main mac laptop whenever I want to watch tv either
    Hence does anyone know of an airplay transmitter?

  52. Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    > asking for the news, the news, the news, stream music
    Nonsense, I "stream" my music files all the time.

    I suppose you make up your own news, weather, and sports scores, as well? And already know everything, of course, so there's no need to connect to the internet to look stuff up?

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  53. Math ? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?" Google gave the correct answer, 42, whereas Alexa gave 54

    Math ?

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  54. Google Home problems by SilentTristero · · Score: 2

    I have a Google Home, and was shocked to discover it can't access my Google Calendar! I have a G Suite (Google Apps) account, and apparently for "security" they disallow access to G Suite calendars from Home. Which is weird because apparently Alexa has no trouble with it at all. Hundreds of messages on the Google Home support forum: https://productforums.google.c...