Things Apple's $350 HomePod Smart-Speaker Can't Do: Answer Random Questions, Check Calendar, Work With an Android Phone, and More (businessinsider.com) 246
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.
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.
Walled garden... (Score:5, Funny)
...is now limited to bonzais and flower pots only.
Re:Walled garden... (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.
Re:Walled garden... (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.
Re:Walled garden... (Score:5, Funny)
I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my home (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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just wearisome to hear these same comments trotted out every time a smart speaker is discussed on the site.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:I would love having Alexis, Google, etc in my h (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 comp
Re: (Score:2)
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 int
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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
So it is an Apple product? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lame, late, and going to take over the world.
Re:So it is an Apple product? (Score:5, Informative)
“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame”
- Slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure the police enjoy the encrypted data dumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome - complete with a BSD first post, and troll posts exploiting the page-widening bug.
But it still can... (Score:5, Insightful)
it was released...well just because (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Jobs was hardly perfect with product feature sets.
Remember the iPod HiFi?
Ping?
MobileMe?
G4 Cube?
Re: (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.
Apple is rarely first and not perfect (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 most
Don't cherry pick (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 Octobe
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs would of....
My eyes. They burn.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So which version of excellence was MobileMe or the G4 Cube?
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the sound quality is better than the competition.
It is first and foremost a speaker after all.
Tindal? (Score:5, Funny)
Not working with Android is by design... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Not working with Android is by design... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What it *CAN* do (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.
Totally wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:3)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, 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.)
Re: (Score:2)
They're great for disability support (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Not surprising (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Machines are companions. Companion's definitions can include non-intelligent things. Heck a book can be a companion, a stuffed animal, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Haters will Hate, Lovers will Love. (Score:2, 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
Re:Haters will Hate, Lovers will Love. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 bei
Apple FOMO (Score:5, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:classic apple (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.
Re: (Score:2)
If my mod points hadn't expired yesterday, I would have used them on this.
Re: (Score:2)
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 requirem
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 reject
Re: (Score:2)
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 imagi
iTunes Home Sharing? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't control that by voice command. Stop with the false equivalence.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery (Score:5, Informative)
it just works? (Score:2)
On the bright side, no South Park jokes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Where's the slashdot skepticism? (Score:2)
"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 lis
It have a lot of courage!! (Score:4, Funny)
5. HomePod can't hook up to another device using an auxiliary cord.
It have a lot of courage!|
How is this news? (Score:2)
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
Siri vs Ok Google vs Alexa (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Things it CAN do... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The other devices do too much (Score:2)
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 b
Google Home problems (Score:3)
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... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"It just works."
Yeeeeeaaaaah.....
It works. We just need to redefine what "work" is
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago I compared it to driving through CrackTown in a convertible with the roof open and being stuck in first gear.
Re: (Score:2)
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.