In the old days when I filled my home with high-end audio gear, I might have actually considered buying a HomePod or at least requesting one for review. Anything new and different was always on my radar — way back when.

But over the years, my listening routine has been simplified. Over a decade ago, I sold a fairly elaborate audio system, worth over $10,000, to raise cash to help out a relative facing financial ruin. I did pretty well in the transaction, actually; some of those components were considered classics, but I wasn’t displeased to let them go. It had been months since I turned the system on, and my listening habits largely focused on playing music and online radio on my Mac. In our bedroom, we’d use a soundbar hooked up to our TV and Blu-ray player.

There was no need for any other components, since I just didn’t have the time to set up a separate listening area anymore and hang out on a sofa. And, no, I wasn’t into listening to music on an iPod. I just never became accustomed to using headphones except for my radio shows. I wasn’t a fan of the Sony Walkman either in its day.

Continue Reading…

Aside from the cheapest gear, whenever you set up a new audio system, there will be one or more adjustments for tonal quality. You may decide you need bass that thumps, treble that sparkles, and a midrange that is clear and distinct but still warm.

From time to time while on the road, I might be parked or passing near a vehicle that’s playing something with the bass way up. I can feel it and it’s so overwhelming I’m not able to hear the music itself. But I can feel the booming, even from a distance, and I wonder what is happening to the driver’s hearing acuity.

Whenever I’ve test driven a car, I find that someone, the manufacturer or the dealer’s new vehicle prep people, has a penchant for excess. Bass is turned way up, treble is turned way up, and before I take it for a test drive, I find a Sound setting somewhere to make it flat. I prefer something that realistically presents the natural quality of the audio system without such embellishments.

But sometimes you have to make adjustments. When I set up a VIZIO soundbar in my apartment, I had to turn the bass control way down, because it thumped a little too much at the flat setting. But that was probably a property of the lively wall behind it, as my previous sound system had the same problem. Indeed, the wall vibration was felt by the neighbor upstairs who was none too happy about it even when I watched a show at normal volume. He even complained to management, but refused to allow me to enter his apartment to see what was bothering him so much, so I had to make a good guess.

Apple’s HomePod is designed to eliminate the need to manually tailor the audio to a specific listening environment. Whether it’s in the middle of the room, or at one of the corners, its A8 processor is working full time to deliver Apple’s vision of the ultimate sound system. Its analytics scheme uses microphones and beamforming to handle the process rapidly behind the scenes.

In general, I can see the value of this approach, and not just for a single system. Imagine setting up a surround sound system for your TV with a subwoofer, three front speakers, for left, right and center, plus a pair of rear speakers. Some of those systems have a semi-automatic set up scheme to put them all into balance any our viewing area.

But often with some of the most expensive speaker systems, you may have to go through a complicated manual setup routine to position them just perfectly, listening carefully for hours or days on end to bring them all into focus. Having engaged in that process a number of times over the years, I’m happy to leave it behind.

So I do understand Apple’s priorities with the HomePad. According to Senior VP Eddy Cue, the HomePod will calculate the EQ automatically. There is no way for you to engage any manual settings. In other words, you have to depend on Apple to decide on the proper balance of the network of tweeters and subwoofer. The elaborate auto-configure system is intended to deliver the identical sonic signature for you however you position it.

This technological achievement, which appears to work according to the HomePod reviews I’ve read, certainly solves a well known problem in fine-tuning audio gear. But, as you see, you’re stuck with Apple’s preferences.

Now this is very much part of Apple’s DNA, to ease the setup process so you can have a gadget running in minutes and never, ever, have to adjust anything again. I’d like to see that with a TV set and other gear. Why would you need to adjust the picture? Shouldn’t it just reproduce, as much as possible, the audio and video settings made when the project was originally mastered? Wouldn’t you prefer to listen to a Beatles track precisely as the Fab Four heard it when it was mixed in the studio?

But, how then did Apple choose the “perfect” sonic signature? Did they call in music producers and movie directors to customize the ideal settings for you? An interesting question.

However, I have another concern. You may decide you prefer deeper bass, you may prefer a more realistic presentation of the midrange and perhaps softer treble. Maybe you disagree with the decisions made in the recording studio, because the wailing lead guitar on a rock track is too strident for your taste,

I rather suspect that 98% of HomePod owners will be only too happy with Apple’s choices, pleased as punch that they don’t have to do a thing to get it to work properly wherever they place it.

While a $349 purchase price may seem expensive for a so-called smart speaker, why couldn’t Apple add, in software, a manual mode in case you want to override their decisions?

Would it be so hard to do? Probably not! A simple software update could provide a way for you to tell Siri, “Give me more bass please!”

Now I don’t think Apple is attempting to foist a nanny state on us with the HomePod. This is also not Apple’s first attempt to build a portable speaker system. Let’s not forget the failed iPod Hi-Fi. Released in 2006, it also cost $349, and actually received mixed reviews. Macworld had high praise for it and awarded it four mice, but it failed to catch on.

But Apple has learned an awful lot since then, and I’m sure there will be changes for the next generation HomePod. But how many of you crave some level of manual EQ? Or am I totally alone in believing such a thing makes sense, at least for some users?

One thing that’s certain when a show business project is under development, and that is that there very well may be staff changes and script changes aplenty before it’s released, not to mention reshoots. That is, if it’s released. Producers may depart, screenwriters may depart, directors may depart, and parts may be recast, or even eliminated.

Most of the key changes are usually covered in the trades, but a high profile project may generate some mainstream press too. Consider that “Wonder Woman,” the DC Comics super hero movie, went through other directors before Patty Jenkins came onboard. Most of you who’ve seen the film will agree she did a truly spectacular job.

But sometimes individual producers seem to develop a reputation, and end up leaving various projects citing “creative differences” and other reasons.

Take Bryan Fuller. I don’t know much about him personally,  but he’s well known for his previous creator and producer roles with “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” “Star Trek: Voyager,” “Pushing Daisies,” a cult classic, “Heroes,” and, most recently, “Hannibal,” the reimagining of the literary character Hannibal Lecter, created by novelist Thomas Harris.

Fuller’s genre credits are first rate.

When CBS planned to bring back fan favorite Star Trek in a new form, “Discovery,” as the flagship for its All Access streaming service, Fuller was brought in as a creator. The show’s deadlines came and went, and just a couple of months before its debut, it was announced that Fuller had left.

It’s reported that CBS and Fuller couldn’t come together over the presentation. He evidently envisioned an anthology series, meaning each episode might have a different story with a different cast. The compromise focused on a serialized show, with a single overall premise each season. According to the trades, there were also differences over the choice of directors, budgets and casting. Indeed, it appeared that Fuller and CBS had very different visions for the new series, with the former choosing to be more adventurous. Eventually he departed.

Now I’m not about to suggest it was all Fuller’s fault, that he was just someone difficult to work with. It may have been a case of oil and water, so maybe the show is better for having him give it a start, and better for continuing in a different direction. Since I am not interested in subscribing to a streaming service for exactly one show, I’m not inclined to want to watch “Star Trek: Discovery” right now.

That takes us to Apple and its plans to produce original TV dramas. Although Apple has yet to officially announce anything, though such an announcement is promised in the near future, it appears that Fuller and producer Hart Hanson, best known for the Fox TV series “Bones,” teamed to work on the Amblin Television reboot of Steven Spielberg’s “Amazing Stories.”

This week came the report that Fuller and Hanson have left the project. Fuller was signed on as showrunner, the person who has creative authority and management responsibility for a television show. In other words, the person who handles the day-to-day production chores.

Again, the reason cited is “creative differences.”

“Amazing Stories” had a two season run in the 1980s. Similar to “Twilight Zone,” and “Outer Limits,” it was an anthology series that featured sci-fi, fantasy and horror stories.

It does appear that Fuller hasn’t had good luck working on TV programs lately. Fuller and producer Michael Green have also been fired from “American Gods,” a drama featured on the Starz premium cable network. But don’t count him out. He’s now reported at work with Paramount Television on an adaptation of Anne Rice’s “Vampire Chronicles.”

Now I’m not about to consider whether such staff turmoil is normal or a little over-the-top. Clearly CBS has made a major commitment to bringing Star Trek back to the small screen. The last series, “Star Trek: Enterprise,” crashed and burned after just four seasons, and it was thought that it was going to be the last.

But you can’t keep Star Trek down. A reboot of the original series has resulted in three movies so far, but a fourth’s prospects are hit or miss after the so-so box office for “Star Trek Beyond.” CBS wanted to take a conservative approach with its new TV series, whereas Fuller apparently had other ideas. With “Amazing Stories,” part of the dispute may have involved the fact that Apple wanted something more family friendly. I suppose we’ll see as the other shows move further along in the development process.

But it’s still not certain how they’ll be distributed. Will they be presented as part of an expanded Apple Music service, will they be offered strictly on iTunes, or as part of a new streaming channel that’ll be featured on Apple TV and other Apple gear?

While I would probably not be averse to considering a subscription to Apple Music if TV shows were also added, I would not be interested in subscribing to yet another TV service. That’s the dilemma competitors to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu are inevitably confronting. Consider the plight of the cord cutter who signs up with a streaming service or two as a way to ditch the cable or satellite habit, and cut down on expenses. Do they really want to spend even more money on loads of separate services?

Let me put my cards onto table. Although I have worn wristwatches since I was maybe ten years old, I have not bought anything particularly expensive. Even when I had a decent amount of spare cash to buy something fancy, I’ve opted for the relatively cheap. Maybe it’ll have a few extra geegaws and such, but I’ve never stretched the budget to get one.

Now Apple released the very first Apple Watch in 2015. That year, I bought a stainless steel calendar watch from Walmart for the grand total of $12.88. It doesn’t exactly keep perfect time. But gaining a second or two each month is no big deal. Also, it has a dumb calendar, so it doesn’t consider months with less than 31 days. It requires manual adjustment to fix, but that’s no big deal either, not at that price.

The battery lasts about a year, but Walmart charges less than $6 to replace it. It’s a fraction of what you’d pay at a regular jewelry store, and I can save a couple of dollars with a do-it-yourself kit. But I can sustain the extravagance, and it’s one less device to charge overnight.

I originally thought I’d keep it for a couple of years and maybe choose something different, but I haven’t felt the need. It’s just a watch and it works fairly well. For now, I’m content, though I wouldn’t refuse something better if I received one as, say, birthday present.

But what about the Apple Watch?

Well, Apple has certainly made steady improvements. Apple gave up the $10,000 Edition after the first year, a sort of on-the-job training period in which it essentially transitioned from a piece of electronic jewelry to a health and fitness device. Apple was clearly paying attention to the use patterns. At the same time, the people I talked to about it seemed to like it, but not love it.

Certainly Apple had some work to do, and the critics were eager to label it one big fail. Big time!

Aside from the price, I continued to resist the Apple Watch because it was heavily tethered to recent iPhones. Nothing wrong with that except, if you didn’t have an iPhone nearby, it would do a whole lot less. Also, the interface was highly restricted because Apple had to stuff so much in such a tiny package and sacrifices had to be made.

Then again, even the first iPhone was quite limited. It didn’t even have support for 3G networks, and it was originally limited to AT&T before expanding to other carriers. Apple didn’t support native apps until 2008, the year after the iPhone debuted.

Year after year, Apple continued to expand existing features and add new ones. Today’s iPhone is actually a better performer than many notebook computers. All in that tiny package, and the mobile handset industry has refashioned their products in the iPhone’s image, but no single model outsells an iPhone, not even close.

With the third generation Apple Watch Series 3, huge steps were taken to lessen its reliance on an iPhone. The addition of LTE networking meant it could actually place phone calls and access cellular data all by itself.

Apple chose not to reveal Apple Watch sales; they buried it in the Other Products category along with the AirPod wireless earphones and other gear. At first it was thought that this was done to hide the fact that sales weren’t very good, but that decision was made before the first unit was sold.

That situation hasn’t stopped industry analysts from making educated guesses that may be close to the mark. So, echoing what Apple announced during the conference call with financial analysts for the December 2017 quarter, sales for that year were more than 50% higher than the previous year. According to Canalys, a total of 18 million units were sold. Of that, eight million were bought in the holidays quarter, a record for wearables for any single quarter.

Indeed, you hardly hear about any of the competition, even that latest Android Wear gadget, and whatever happened to Fitbit? Fit who? Yes, Android fans will continue to extol the alleged advantages of the latest and greatest. but according to Jason Low, a Senior Analyst at Canalys, “Apple has won the wearables game,” that, “despite innovative designs, such as the rotating bezels and circular screens employed by other vendors, Apple has pulled far ahead as it continues to focus on its core iPhone user base. Its recent updates to the Series 3, such as GymKit and Apple Heart Study, are proving to offer compelling use cases, encouraging users to spend more on accessories.”

With sales much higher in a holiday quarter for obvious reasons, Apple has grown its annual smartwatch to unit sales close to that of the Macintosh. Apple sold over 20 million iPhones in its third year, so the Apple Watch is surprisingly close for a roughly comparable period. If high double digit growth continues, it may well be that its potential over the years will be far more than anyone expects.

That doesn’t mean I’d buy one anytime soon even if I had the spare cash. But maybe someday.