... to do stuff, not let closed spy jewlery do stuff to us.
It's actually funny: An iTard rock climber with an iWatch is less of a lifeform than even an AC blob who does nothing but comment and work with computers all day. Because he has entirely given up being an individual, and has just folded and handed his body to the owner of the swam lifeform he joined. Because passive-thinking and passive-living is soo much "easier", and that is what being alive is all about!.../s
Would you like to try that diatribe again, this time in some human language?
I'm sure something costing 6x the price can be nicer, though. I'm certainly not at the point where that price difference is non-significant, especially when a child is going to be doing their best to break it.
Hey, sitting here with my relatively ancient iPad 2, that I wouldn't even HAVE if my employer had 't given it to me for XMas about 5 years ago, I'm very familiar with personal finances compromising and/or limiting choices in tech. So, it that is the case, then I sincerely apologize for my snarky comment!
But if you can ever see it to purchase an iPad, they are pretty rugged, and with a simple case, are fairly indestructible.
Tablet sales worldwide are down year over year, and have been for several years. Most people just don't have a need for a device between their phone and their computer. Not surprising that it isn't Google's priority.
Amazon sells tablets fine with the major complaint being that they lack the Google Play store and standard Google apps. The market was there. All Google had to do was match the specs of Amazon devices and make it Google specific instead of Amazon specific.
Absolutely this.
I bought my daughter a Kindle 7 inch because she kept wanting to use my iPad and I didn't want to spend that much money on her. I put it in a childproof case along with a large microSD card and she uses it for YouTube, to play some games and watch her favourite films.
If Google had offered an alternative priced around the same (hell, I would happily pay a slight premium to avoid Amazon's "improvements") then I would have bought it in an instant.
Google are missing a trick here.
You can buy a brand new 9.7 inch iPad for under $300. Guaranteed she will like that better than your cheapskate inferior non-solution.
Yep! Nexus 7 was perfect...Mine had its screen die one day, I discovered that it wasn't made anymore...To have an okay screen I had to buy a shitty overpriced Samsung tablet that is barely useable...Maybe next time I will make do between a big phone, a laptop and an e-book reader (if that still exists...)...And then they wonder why tablets are "dying"... Bought a Lenovo tablet as a gift a few years back, apparently it wasn't bad and the price was good...Of course they don't make this model anymore...
Funny; over in iOS-land, tablets are doing fine.
You can whine all you want; but Apple is truly the only company that has had a sustainable tablet solution, and has had it for just under a decade, with no real signs of stopping.
In fact, their tablets, and their purpose-built OS, are actually becoming more robust over time, to the point where some people have actually been able to work entirely in iOS. NOT saying everyone can, not by a long shot; but it has been getting steadily better over the past few years.
When I had a Palm IIIxe I thought, what a marvelous device! This is certainly the future, I can put all my information in here, bring it with me and access it whenever I want; if only the interface was better. Then along came touch screens, and stupidly, I got an iPod touch. The first app I tried needed a login to some website. The second app needed a login to some website. Every app I tried needed a login to some website. I thought to myself, why do I need a website run by someone I don't know that is who knows where, in who knows what country, to do what my Palm could do with a docking device.
Funny. Out of the over 100 Apps I have on my iPhone and iPad, I can only name a few that "have to log on to a website". A lot of them DISPLAY ad-stuff that probably comes from a web-server, and stuff like Weather Apps can ONLY work by pulling data from some server somewhere (since my iPhone doesn't have Doppler RADAR capabilities); but I am pretty sure most, if not all of them would still work if my internet service was down.
Honestly, the area of the market they need to develop is the integrated home PC.
A modular system, wired into the home that enables 3rd parties to develop home technologies. I don't need every device in my home to be connected to the internet - I need them to connect to my home system and be managed locally. My PC should be my home's cloud and every "smart device" should just be a control board & dumb display that get fed data from applications/services running on the PC.
How is what I said wrong? Are you not locked into Apple's ecosystem? (you are) Did they promise you wouldn't be? (they did not) Did I claim they don't provide product support? (I did not)
Care to try again?
I am not "locked in", simply because all I have to do to "Escape" is to turn left instead of turn right (IOW, buy something else).
It's is NOT "lock-in" if you can "leave" at any time.
It is NOT "lock-in" if you open the door and walk-in of your own free-will (by purchasing an Apple product).
It is NOT "lock-in" if you understand that, like ALL "platforms" and "ecosystems", one's chosen "platform" or "ecosystem" (speaking specifically regarding computing-products), cannot load and execute ANY software you desire. So, in that sense, EVERY "platform" or "ecosystem" is "Locked-In" (or NONE of them are!). If an application is available for iOS but NOT for Android, no amount of WISHING will make it run on Android, and vice-versa. And in fact, on the Mac side, Apple is the ONLY computer OEM that can LEGALLY run pretty-much ANY OS and its Applications.
I lock my doors to my house at night. But I am free to open them and leave at any time. Am I "locked in" to my house?
Of course they don't want to update anything. How are they supposed to convince you that your 1-year-old phone is now outdated garbage and that you must buy a new one if you don't want to be left behind? Never mind that the old phones end up crunched into little toxic bits and shipped off by the tonne to some asian country to be 'recycled' (as if !) only this fiscal quarters' profits matter; the environment is someone else's problem.
That's why you should buy an Apple phone.
Not only are their products almost always supported for many years (generally 4-5 for mobile, and 7-10 for desktop), but for the phones (and I think the computers, too), they offer a recycling service (which they even mostly pay YOU for!) that they claim is responsible for making their new products generally about 80% recycled materials, with a goal of 100% recycled in a few years.
Apple mobile devices stop working after 4 to 5 years of use because they are locked down. If you stick with the major Android phones supported by third-party ROM makers like lineageos, then you can keep the phone working for many years beyond when the manufacturers decide to stop supporting it. People just need to do the research to figure out what phones have replacement ROMs available. Flashing phone ROMs would seem to be a good business for local PC shops to get into, but most people typically buy a new phone every couple years without giving it much thought.
Well, with Apple products, by the time they fall off the supported-list, they are far-enough behind in general technology that they simply aren't really much worth updating, anyway.
And, other than the occasional hypercritical security update (which Apple has occasionally offered even to out-of-supported devices), most of the time it isn't a big deal; since "unsupported" DOESN'T mean "non-functional".
In terms of device support, updates, and not being locked into someone's ecosystem, I increasingly see Android as a failure because it's not living up to the promises.
Apple only lives up to its promises because it never promised you wouldn't be locked into their ecosystem. Just saying.
Wrong.
Apple lives up to its promises because, by and large, they actually DO provide updates for around 4 to 5 years.
And no, I don't want to hear (again!) about your outlier iPad example. I said "by and large". That covers it.;-)
Pushing yesterday's tech, with their slow, power-hungry designs.
Why do you think all the Qualcomm-equipped smartphones have batteries twice the mAh capacity of an iPhone's, but with vastly inferior performance and nearly identical battery life?
And yet, then they trap OEMs into using their horseshit tech, and SUE them for breach of contract if they try to change to something else.
And 20 MILLIsecond latency in a dedicated system with gobs of hardware support? Yeah, that's "cutting edge"...
Sorry, no. In fact, that "comparison" article is quite laughable.
And the people who think that the HomePod has "no midrange" (which, BTW, is NOT reflected in the Freq. Resp. curves I've seen) are likely used to shitty computer-speakers, where the main drivers would be more properly placed in a full-range system as MIDRANGE drivers, and thus, those other systems have an OVERABUNDANCE of Midrange; so the HomePod sounds "deficient" by comparison.
Go ahead, justify the fact it's a poor performer. We know you already live-and-breathe Apple. Go ahead, walk into a stereo shop and ask why their products don't sound as good as a HomePod. Go ahead and cheer-lead your locked in product once again, and stay on that Apple reserve!
Man, I think the only subject we agree on is contained in your tagline.
If you can't read the Wiki link (high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range) then there is no hope for you. But then, we know you're an Apple fanatic, so there was no hope to begin with, so... Perhaps you should check reviewsother thanApple Fanboi sites. Seriously, anyone who thinks a HomePod sounds better than a SONOS Play:1 is either deaf or a dyed-in-the-wool Apple Cultist.
I can read fine.
It's STILL SUBJECTIVE.
"Inaudible noise and distortion". Inaudible to WHO? And what KIND of Noise and Distortion, since IM distortion is MUCH more audible, depending on the frequencies involved, than THD is (haven't we had this discussion already?)
"Flat frequency response". Again, since NOTHING has a PERFECTLY-FLAT frequency response, that is an utterly impossible-to-achieve spec, sorry!
Oh, and do you really think that pitting ONE HomePod against TWO SonosOnes is a fair comparison?
In fact, the C/Net Review flatly states that:
"As we found in our review, the $349 (£319, AU$499) Apple HomePod is an accomplished speaker. By itself it outperforms the $199 (£199, AU$299) Sonos One, winner of our Editors' Choice award as the all-around best smart speaker."
[Emphasis mine]
So, Let's try TWO SonosOnes against TWO HomePods. Howabout THAT?
I NEVER said that the HomePod was the CHEAPER speaker, now did I? And THAT is the ONLY criteria where your C/Net review makes it's comparison.
So now, you have switched the argument from "Is the HomePod 'High Fidelity' " (whatever THAT means!) to "Is the HomePod more COST-EFFECTIVE than the SonosOne?"
OK, go ahead and claim the HomePod is high fidelity. That says a LOT about the standards you hold! HomePod is a gimmick, an also-ran, a distant 4th - behind Amazon, Google, and SONOS. Enjoy your 4th rate sound!
Nice deflection!
All I said is that I haven't seen a TECHNICAL (non-subjective) definition of High Fidelity.
You failed to provide one.
Then when challenged, you DEFLECT by again attacking the HomePod as not meeting a Standard you can't even provide an OBJECTIVE, REALISTIC Definition for!
I'm honestly not sure if I would characterize the HomePod as "High Fidelity" (according to my personal standards); but I haven't read even one review that places its Sound Quality "a distant 4th" BEHIND Sonos, Amazon or Google. Not one.
So, regardless of your (or my) SUBJECTIVE definitions of "High Fidelity", according to ALL the reviews I have read, the HomePod is at least HighER Fidelity than those other brands you mentioned. And in most cases, significantly so.
Merriam Webster defines high fidelity, and Wikipedia does as well. The HomePods are NOT high fidelity. Walk into any stereo shop and ask... But hey, this is the company that pushes their crappy "earpods" and owns Beats - what do we expect about audio quality?
Merriam-Webster's definition is kind of self-referential, and is quite subjective:
"the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original."
That's IT. You are KIDDING me, right?
The first paragraph of Wikipedia's definition sounds like some rando off the street wrote it.
"High fidelity (often shortened to hi-fi or hifi) is a term used by listeners, audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts to refer to high-quality reproduction of sound.[1] This is in contrast to the lower quality sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s.
Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]".
And their second paragraph (above) is such that NOT ONE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT can meet it, at least not the "Flat... frequency response within the human hearing range.".
Not ONE piece of equipment is COMPLETELY FLAT. Some come pretty close; but, if you are to take Wikipedia at their word...
Computer-controlled beamforming is a LOT different from Bose fakery.
Yes it is. Unfortunatley the only people who are capable of beam-forming in Apple are their marketing department which presumably had to come up with a name for the totally nothing at all like beam-forming thing that Apple engineers shat out and didn't realise the name was already taken.
Riiiiight. Of COURSE you know more than a group of engineers that have worked on a project for seven years.
Why don't you edutate us, then? Oh, and I'll take that copy of your Curriculum Vitae, too, while you're at it.
Well, you won't get me to argue that a 901, even a 901a, is anything LIKE a high-fidelity speaker system.
Likewise, you don't get to argue that the HomePod is anything LIKE a high-fidelity speaker system. Because it is most definitely not.
Since the term "high fidelity" does not have a technical term, then it is impossible to say whether a particular system is "high fidelity" or not, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Tim Cocksuckers works out her stupid butthole
Another erudite AC heard from!
... to do stuff, not let closed spy jewlery do stuff to us.
It's actually funny: An iTard rock climber with an iWatch is less of a lifeform than even an AC blob who does nothing but comment and work with computers all day. ... /s
Because he has entirely given up being an individual, and has just folded and handed his body to the owner of the swam lifeform he joined. Because passive-thinking and passive-living is soo much "easier", and that is what being alive is all about!
Would you like to try that diatribe again, this time in some human language?
Automatic listening? WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG???
I guess we'll just have to pretend we have this thing called privacy. Apple Watch will join Alexa in recording all of your conversations.
Yeahrightsure.
Like it has the infinite battery power needed to remain awake and transmitting your every boring utterance to the mothership.
For a tech site, Slashdot has got some of the LEAST tech-savvy participants I have ever seen...
Crappls sucks ass, Tim Cocksucker sucked off all good stuff.
Wow! What an erudite post.
Exactly what I have come to expect from Slashtard AC Apple Haters.
A Fire 7" tablet costs $50
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J...
I'm sure something costing 6x the price can be nicer, though. I'm certainly not at the point where that price difference is non-significant, especially when a child is going to be doing their best to break it.
Hey, sitting here with my relatively ancient iPad 2, that I wouldn't even HAVE if my employer had 't given it to me for XMas about 5 years ago, I'm very familiar with personal finances compromising and/or limiting choices in tech. So, it that is the case, then I sincerely apologize for my snarky comment!
But if you can ever see it to purchase an iPad, they are pretty rugged, and with a simple case, are fairly indestructible.
Google doesn't make much from hardware sales. They mostly do it to drive the tech forward and push Android development.
And to increase their data mining footprint.
Never forget that.
My phone display is large enough that it's the best of both worlds (phone and tablet)
Too bad you phone is too big to fit in a shirt pocket.
Tablet sales worldwide are down year over year, and have been for several years. Most people just don't have a need for a device between their phone and their computer. Not surprising that it isn't Google's priority.
Ahem.
Not for Apple, they aren't:
http://fortune.com/2017/11/03/...
Absolutely this.
I bought my daughter a Kindle 7 inch because she kept wanting to use my iPad and I didn't want to spend that much money on her. I put it in a childproof case along with a large microSD card and she uses it for YouTube, to play some games and watch her favourite films.
If Google had offered an alternative priced around the same (hell, I would happily pay a slight premium to avoid Amazon's "improvements") then I would have bought it in an instant.
Google are missing a trick here.
You can buy a brand new 9.7 inch iPad for under $300. Guaranteed she will like that better than your cheapskate inferior non-solution.
Yep! Nexus 7 was perfect...Mine had its screen die one day, I discovered that it wasn't made anymore...To have an okay screen I had to buy a shitty overpriced Samsung tablet that is barely useable...Maybe next time I will make do between a big phone, a laptop and an e-book reader (if that still exists...) ...And then they wonder why tablets are "dying"...
Bought a Lenovo tablet as a gift a few years back, apparently it wasn't bad and the price was good...Of course they don't make this model anymore...
Funny; over in iOS-land, tablets are doing fine.
You can whine all you want; but Apple is truly the only company that has had a sustainable tablet solution, and has had it for just under a decade, with no real signs of stopping.
In fact, their tablets, and their purpose-built OS, are actually becoming more robust over time, to the point where some people have actually been able to work entirely in iOS. NOT saying everyone can, not by a long shot; but it has been getting steadily better over the past few years.
When I had a Palm IIIxe I thought, what a marvelous device! This is certainly the future, I can put all my information in here, bring it with me and access it whenever I want; if only the interface was better. Then along came touch screens, and stupidly, I got an iPod touch. The first app I tried needed a login to some website. The second app needed a login to some website. Every app I tried needed a login to some website. I thought to myself, why do I need a website run by someone I don't know that is who knows where, in who knows what country, to do what my Palm could do with a docking device.
Funny. Out of the over 100 Apps I have on my iPhone and iPad, I can only name a few that "have to log on to a website". A lot of them DISPLAY ad-stuff that probably comes from a web-server, and stuff like Weather Apps can ONLY work by pulling data from some server somewhere (since my iPhone doesn't have Doppler RADAR capabilities); but I am pretty sure most, if not all of them would still work if my internet service was down.
Try again, Hater.
What kind of Apps are you Running, anyway?
The open source community needs to come together
HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAHAHAHAHHHAHHHHAAAAAA!!!!!!
Ow, it hurts! Stop it!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHHHHOHOHOHOHOHOHHHOHHO!!!!
Come together to write an AI platform?!? HOW many Linux Distros are there?!?!?
That's the best laugh I've had all year!
Honestly, the area of the market they need to develop is the integrated home PC.
A modular system, wired into the home that enables 3rd parties to develop home technologies. I don't need every device in my home to be connected to the internet - I need them to connect to my home system and be managed locally. My PC should be my home's cloud and every "smart device" should just be a control board & dumb display that get fed data from applications/services running on the PC.
I'm with you on that! Well stated!!!
How is what I said wrong? Are you not locked into Apple's ecosystem? (you are) Did they promise you wouldn't be? (they did not) Did I claim they don't provide product support? (I did not)
Care to try again?
I am not "locked in", simply because all I have to do to "Escape" is to turn left instead of turn right (IOW, buy something else).
It's is NOT "lock-in" if you can "leave" at any time.
It is NOT "lock-in" if you open the door and walk-in of your own free-will (by purchasing an Apple product).
It is NOT "lock-in" if you understand that, like ALL "platforms" and "ecosystems", one's chosen "platform" or "ecosystem" (speaking specifically regarding computing-products), cannot load and execute ANY software you desire. So, in that sense, EVERY "platform" or "ecosystem" is "Locked-In" (or NONE of them are!). If an application is available for iOS but NOT for Android, no amount of WISHING will make it run on Android, and vice-versa. And in fact, on the Mac side, Apple is the ONLY computer OEM that can LEGALLY run pretty-much ANY OS and its Applications.
I lock my doors to my house at night. But I am free to open them and leave at any time. Am I "locked in" to my house?
There.
Of course they don't want to update anything. How are they supposed to convince you that your 1-year-old phone is now outdated garbage and that you must buy a new one if you don't want to be left behind? Never mind that the old phones end up crunched into little toxic bits and shipped off by the tonne to some asian country to be 'recycled' (as if !) only this fiscal quarters' profits matter; the environment is someone else's problem.
That's why you should buy an Apple phone.
Not only are their products almost always supported for many years (generally 4-5 for mobile, and 7-10 for desktop), but for the phones (and I think the computers, too), they offer a recycling service (which they even mostly pay YOU for!) that they claim is responsible for making their new products generally about 80% recycled materials, with a goal of 100% recycled in a few years.
https://www.apple.com/shop/tra...
I can't find the article I read that quoted the 80% figure; but here is a general "rah rah" report regarding Apple's environmental efforts:
https://www.apple.com/environm...
Apple mobile devices stop working after 4 to 5 years of use because they are locked down. If you stick with the major Android phones supported by third-party ROM makers like lineageos, then you can keep the phone working for many years beyond when the manufacturers decide to stop supporting it. People just need to do the research to figure out what phones have replacement ROMs available. Flashing phone ROMs would seem to be a good business for local PC shops to get into, but most people typically buy a new phone every couple years without giving it much thought.
Well, with Apple products, by the time they fall off the supported-list, they are far-enough behind in general technology that they simply aren't really much worth updating, anyway.
And, other than the occasional hypercritical security update (which Apple has occasionally offered even to out-of-supported devices), most of the time it isn't a big deal; since "unsupported" DOESN'T mean "non-functional".
In terms of device support, updates, and not being locked into someone's ecosystem, I increasingly see Android as a failure because it's not living up to the promises.
Apple only lives up to its promises because it never promised you wouldn't be locked into their ecosystem. Just saying.
Wrong.
Apple lives up to its promises because, by and large, they actually DO provide updates for around 4 to 5 years.
And no, I don't want to hear (again!) about your outlier iPad example. I said "by and large". That covers it. ;-)
Pushing yesterday's tech, with their slow, power-hungry designs.
Why do you think all the Qualcomm-equipped smartphones have batteries twice the mAh capacity of an iPhone's, but with vastly inferior performance and nearly identical battery life?
And yet, then they trap OEMs into using their horseshit tech, and SUE them for breach of contract if they try to change to something else.
And 20 MILLIsecond latency in a dedicated system with gobs of hardware support? Yeah, that's "cutting edge"...
SONOS One the winner. Sorry!
And Gizmodo is some sort of Audio-centric site?
Sorry, no. In fact, that "comparison" article is quite laughable.
And the people who think that the HomePod has "no midrange" (which, BTW, is NOT reflected in the Freq. Resp. curves I've seen) are likely used to shitty computer-speakers, where the main drivers would be more properly placed in a full-range system as MIDRANGE drivers, and thus, those other systems have an OVERABUNDANCE of Midrange; so the HomePod sounds "deficient" by comparison.
Go ahead, justify the fact it's a poor performer. We know you already live-and-breathe Apple. Go ahead, walk into a stereo shop and ask why their products don't sound as good as a HomePod. Go ahead and cheer-lead your locked in product once again, and stay on that Apple reserve!
Man, I think the only subject we agree on is contained in your tagline.
If you can't read the Wiki link (high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range) then there is no hope for you. But then, we know you're an Apple fanatic, so there was no hope to begin with, so... Perhaps you should check reviews other than Apple Fanboi sites. Seriously, anyone who thinks a HomePod sounds better than a SONOS Play:1 is either deaf or a dyed-in-the-wool Apple Cultist.
I can read fine.
It's STILL SUBJECTIVE.
"Inaudible noise and distortion". Inaudible to WHO? And what KIND of Noise and Distortion, since IM distortion is MUCH more audible, depending on the frequencies involved, than THD is (haven't we had this discussion already?)
"Flat frequency response". Again, since NOTHING has a PERFECTLY-FLAT frequency response, that is an utterly impossible-to-achieve spec, sorry!
Oh, and do you really think that pitting ONE HomePod against TWO SonosOnes is a fair comparison?
In fact, the C/Net Review flatly states that:
"As we found in our review, the $349 (£319, AU$499) Apple HomePod is an accomplished speaker. By itself it outperforms the $199 (£199, AU$299) Sonos One, winner of our Editors' Choice award as the all-around best smart speaker."
[Emphasis mine]
So, Let's try TWO SonosOnes against TWO HomePods. Howabout THAT?
I NEVER said that the HomePod was the CHEAPER speaker, now did I? And THAT is the ONLY criteria where your C/Net review makes it's comparison.
So now, you have switched the argument from "Is the HomePod 'High Fidelity' " (whatever THAT means!) to "Is the HomePod more COST-EFFECTIVE than the SonosOne?"
BZZZT! Nice try, fucktard.
OK, go ahead and claim the HomePod is high fidelity. That says a LOT about the standards you hold! HomePod is a gimmick, an also-ran, a distant 4th - behind Amazon, Google, and SONOS. Enjoy your 4th rate sound!
Nice deflection!
All I said is that I haven't seen a TECHNICAL (non-subjective) definition of High Fidelity.
You failed to provide one.
Then when challenged, you DEFLECT by again attacking the HomePod as not meeting a Standard you can't even provide an OBJECTIVE, REALISTIC Definition for!
I'm honestly not sure if I would characterize the HomePod as "High Fidelity" (according to my personal standards); but I haven't read even one review that places its Sound Quality "a distant 4th" BEHIND Sonos, Amazon or Google. Not one.
So, regardless of your (or my) SUBJECTIVE definitions of "High Fidelity", according to ALL the reviews I have read, the HomePod is at least HighER Fidelity than those other brands you mentioned. And in most cases, significantly so.
So, go argue against all those guys.
Merriam Webster defines high fidelity, and Wikipedia does as well. The HomePods are NOT high fidelity. Walk into any stereo shop and ask... But hey, this is the company that pushes their crappy "earpods" and owns Beats - what do we expect about audio quality?
Merriam-Webster's definition is kind of self-referential, and is quite subjective:
"the reproduction of an effect (such as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original."
That's IT. You are KIDDING me, right?
The first paragraph of Wikipedia's definition sounds like some rando off the street wrote it.
"High fidelity (often shortened to hi-fi or hifi) is a term used by listeners, audiophiles and home audio enthusiasts to refer to high-quality reproduction of sound.[1] This is in contrast to the lower quality sound produced by inexpensive audio equipment, or the inferior quality of sound reproduction that can be heard in recordings made until the late 1940s.
Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has inaudible noise and distortion, and a flat (neutral, uncolored) frequency response within the human hearing range.[2]".
And their second paragraph (above) is such that NOT ONE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT can meet it, at least not the "Flat ... frequency response within the human hearing range.".
Not ONE piece of equipment is COMPLETELY FLAT. Some come pretty close; but, if you are to take Wikipedia at their word...
And that's the best you can do? Sheesh!
Computer-controlled beamforming is a LOT different from Bose fakery.
Yes it is. Unfortunatley the only people who are capable of beam-forming in Apple are their marketing department which presumably had to come up with a name for the totally nothing at all like beam-forming thing that Apple engineers shat out and didn't realise the name was already taken.
Riiiiight. Of COURSE you know more than a group of engineers that have worked on a project for seven years.
Why don't you edutate us, then? Oh, and I'll take that copy of your Curriculum Vitae, too, while you're at it.
Well, you won't get me to argue that a 901, even a 901a, is anything LIKE a high-fidelity speaker system.
Likewise, you don't get to argue that the HomePod is anything LIKE a high-fidelity speaker system. Because it is most definitely not.
Since the term "high fidelity" does not have a technical term, then it is impossible to say whether a particular system is "high fidelity" or not, isn't it?