Skip to main content

Apple HomePod, A Thought or Two

Apple is heaving their latest product onto an unsuspecting world. It's called HomePod and it's Apple's entry into the smart speaker market. It has typical Apple pricing, i.e., too high for what you get, yet it also performs like a typical Apple product, i.e., generally really well.

At least according to initial reviews, that is; I'm unlikely to experience this myself. Because I'm not an Apple guy (PC computers, Android phones, Amazon/Spotify music), I'm not looking to buy a HomePod. As such, I'm not going to pretend to review the product. Rather, what struck me was the irony of the state of the smart speaker market, and a lot of the blame lies with Apple.

I've owned an Amazon Echo since day one. I preordered the product when it was announced and had it setup in my apartment by Christmas 2014, that first generation product that came with it's own remote control (which I've never used and I'm not really sure where it is right now). Since then, I've moved into a house and that first Echo has been joined by several of its cousins. I'm perfectly happy with the lot, though I'll be the first to admit that the music quality isn't the best.

But that's all right. When I want better sound, I fire up the Bose or put on headphones. For background, ambient music, the Echoes are great.

As I said, much has been made of the HomePod's sound quality. It's miles ahead of any of the Echoes, or the Google speaker range, or even the Amazon Alexa-enabled Sonos One. (Strangely, the Harman Kardon Invoke isn't mentioned...) What I find ironic is that prior to this, Apple had trained us all to accept crappy music quality.

Apple fans may now scream, but look at the history. The original iPod, which is not the original digital music player but the device that made portable music a thing, came with for crap earphones and had music recorded at a for crap bitrate. People bought them by the bushel, even when they were essentially Apple exclusive (much like the HomePod is now). That is, to use them (or the HomePod) you had to be running Apple hardware. Once iTunes made it onto PCs, the iPod market just went berserk.

With crappy earphones playing crappy quality music. And people did not care.

Apple only improved its game when forced to by competition, not because of any great consumer demand. The earphones became somewhat better and the digital files are now at a higher bitrate, with some even "tuned to iTunes" for subtle improvements. Nonetheless, my old Zune sounded worlds better than my 4th generation iPod (which now languishes in a drawer because it's just no longer needed).

And then Apple undercut that by eliminating the headphone jack and driving all iPhone users to Bluetooth. Bluetooth is notorious in how it diminishes audio quality. Everything remains "good enough," but if you get the chance, listen to a speaker utilizing first Bluetooth and then with either a direct connect wire of WiFi. You can hear the difference.

Today, Apple, which has grown wealthy by training us that when it comes to audio quality, good enough is, well, good enough, is now a late entry into the smart speaker market and is touting its sound quality.

So I'm more than a little amused by the irony of it all. The HomePod will, undoubtedly, sell by the ton, despite costing over three times what an Echo does, more than twice a Sonos One or Invoke or Bose. The buyer, at least at first, will be totally locked into the Apple ecology (Apple Music only), but since they have to use an Apple device to set things up, I doubt they'll care.

Meanwhile, I'll be happy with the good enough quality that Apple trained us all to accept, and take advantage of that deal Microsoft is still offering, $100 for an Invoke, for those times I want Spotify to sound really great.

In addendum: Having had to edit this in order to fix Blogger formatting, I wanted to add that for people like me (i.e., doesn't own an Apple product), the cost for a HomePod is actually the price of the speaker itself plus the cost of the iOS device that's required to setup the speaker. Plus the monthly cost for Apple Music. In other words, this is a hard pass.


Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home.Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes. In Batman Begins, I blamed Katie Holmes. Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film, at almost two and a half hours, might be a shade long. Having said t…

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

With its release on home video, we come to the unsurprising and yet still bitter disappointment that is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Unsurprising, because of a lousy director. Disappointing, because it should have been great. To explain further will involve light spoilers; I will avoid larger giveaways. In a galaxy far, far away, the Empire continues to consolidate its power after the fall of the Republic (see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith). Toward that end, they are assembling a giant battle station, the Death Star. The Rebel Alliance plots a way of finding out what’s going on and perhaps, in the process, save their collective butts. Rebellious galivanting ensues. All of the elements necessary to craft a good story are here, yet none of them work. The blame lies almost exclusively at the feet of director Gareth Edwards. This is his third film (after Monsters and Godzilla) and his failings as a director stand out in each. The major problems with each film involve the peopl…

Conspiracy (2001)

The Holocaust remains an unfathomable atrocity, the unholy benchmark by which all such are measured. Stalin and Mao both make Hitler look like an amateur when it came to sheer body count, yet the Holocaust remains unique. It seems to boil down to two reasons. First, the Nazis were terrifying in their systematic approach to the slaughter of Jews, driven by their ideological belief that they were acting for the greater good of all mankind. And second, they hunted Jews in any land they conquered; the goal wasn't merely to "purify" Germany, but the world. Few films have captured these points as well as HBO's 2001 film, Conspiracy. On January 20, 1942, a group of senior officials of Nazi Germany met at a lovely house in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee. The purpose of their meeting was to determine the "final solution" for the Jews. The Wannsee Conference developed what is referred to as the Wannsee Protocol. A single copy of the document remains. Conspiracy, drawi…