Poll, only for people who have pre-ordered a Duo. When is your delivery/pickup date?

• October
• November
• December
• January

The results were interesting; I’m glad I asked.

Observations:

• There were way more people who successfully got October ship dates than I expected. It’s very close to even with November ship dates.

• The fact that there are fewer December ship dates than January, is to me, a sign of Apple’s appreciation for the holidays. I think Apple is only promising “December” for shipments they are 100 percent certain they can deliver by Christmas. I bet a bunch of the orders promised for January will in fact ship in December — albeit perhaps too-late-for-Christmas December.

• Apparently some configurations are getting an estimated date of February 1. I wish I’d listed February as an option, but I don’t think it would have made a big difference.

• Per MacRumors today, some pre-order estimates are already moving up, like from early December to late November.

No one should mistake my audience as representative of the general public in any poll, but I bet my audience is at least ballpark representative of the general public when it comes to something like pre-ordering, at the crack of dawn, a new iPhone form factor that costs $2000 to $3200.

Apple introduced HomeView with a three-minute introductory film simulating a suburban family’s hectic before-school/work kitchen rush hour, with versions hosted on Apple’s site and YouTube. The most ridiculous aspect of it is that anyone would possibly make their kid French toast in that scenario. I’d have told my son to make his own goddamn French toast with that attitude. Or I’d have made a single serving and eaten it myself right in front of him. Bro.

I do think the basic concept is an intriguing idea. But as an implementation of that concept, my initial impressions are threefold. First, I am unconvinced that anyone in a family would use this for anything other than playing music or podcasts, rather than just using their phones. And if that’s the case, why not just have a HomePod? Apple’s video shows family members taking turns to use the HomeView, rotating it on the kitchen island to face themselves. Why? Why does the mom check her calendar on this, rather than on her iPhone, while the dad is using it to follow a French toast recipe? There’s a real “Why do we need this?” question here and I don’t think Apple’s video answers it, at all. You need to think you want it if you’re going to buy it. And even if you already had a HomeView set up, I’m not sure how often you’d use it instead of your phone, or instead of just talking to it like a screenless HomePod.

Second, all the touching and rotating — in Apple’s own demonstration — makes it seem awkward that HomeView must be tethered to a USB power cable. If you look closely in the video, they do show the USB power cable in some shots, but not many. And if you look really closely, this hypothetical family has drilled a hole in the center of their kitchen island to snake the cable through.

The hero shot introducing the product, of course, does not show the power cable at all:

We see a wee bit of the cable when the dad reaches to touch the screen to start the French toast recipe:

And then a few seconds later, after the mom rotates the HomeView to the side, so she can check her calendar (despite the fact that she knows the dad was using it to follow a recipe), we get our most honest shot of the cabling situation:

The above shot is at 0:49. It’s followed by two quick cuts to the dad and then the younger daughter, then at 0:52 we cut back to the mom (curious about her daughter’s new boyfriend situation), and, lo, the shot is now framed in such a way that we no longer see where the cable goes:

If you think that slight reframing is happenstance, you should stay away from poker tables. Most kitchen islands I’m familiar with — including my own — have power outlets on the sides of the island. I’m sure some people have power outlets on the top surface of the counter, but I can’t recall seeing one. These are kitchen counters, not office desks. But either way, there’d be a long USB-C cable cluttering the countertop. And if you do happen to have a power outlet on the top surface of your counter, there’d be an adapter sticking out of it, all the time, to duplicate this HomeView setup.

This family’s convenient hole in the center of their island countertop is a fantasy. Where does the cable go underneath? How exactly do they have a power adapter plugged in down there? What happens when something spills on the counter? When we custom ordered our kitchen, we weren’t asked if we wanted any holes drilled in our island countertop, and if we had been asked, it would have made me wonder if the guy asking the question had a hole or two drilled in his head.

I know, it’s a marketing video. Marketing videos present products in ideal settings. But the power cable is an essential aspect of the standalone HomeView. I’m not suggesting that it should be battery powered. You’d still need to plug it in every few days, which would mean most people would just leave it plugged in, which gets us back to needing to live with an always-visible cable and power adapter in one of our living spaces. The countertop hole this cable disappears into in this video is less ideal and more dishonest.

The wall-mounted option seems more appealing to me, but now you’re talking about a home improvement project and (for most of us) calling an electrician. And that raises the question of why the wall-mounted version costs the same $300 as the one with the connected base, even though the base provides the subwoofer. And it requires a mount, and the mounts cost $60 (USB-C), $80 (AC wired), or $130 (PoE — and this one is not available yet). So the wall-mounted version, when you include a mount, costs more but sounds worse? This doesn’t make sense.

Those points make me skeptical that there’s a place for HomeView in my home. We have a stereo pair of HomePods in our kitchen. Neither is on the center island, because that would be dumb. They’re on the counters along the outside of the kitchen, each near an outlet on the wall. In the four days since HomeView was announced, I’ve tried to imagine when I’d want to look at something on a screen on either of them. My count remains at zero.

My third early impression is that the display is surprisingly small. I saw HomeView in person in New York on Tuesday, and I think Apple’s video conveys its size very accurately. It’s small and cute. It’s much more like a HomePod Mini with a screen than a full-size HomePod with a screen. For some reason I was expecting the latter. This is not a complaint, simply an observation. I actually think that making it small and cute makes it about as unobtrusive as an ever-present screen could possibly be. That’s good. But because it’s small you need to be close to it to read anything more detailed than large glanceable widgets.

The major difference between a device with a screen and one without is that you can watch video on a device with a screen. But HomeView clearly isn’t intended for that. It can play video but isn’t primarily meant to play video. If it were it would have a widescreen aspect ratio. But instead it has a square aspect ratio,¹ which is decidedly unsuited to video, unless, I suppose, you want a screen that is equally unsuited for both widescreen and tallscreen video.

So my skepticism boils down to the question of why anyone would want to add one (or more!) additional ever-present screens to our homes and lives. Phones can stay in our pockets until we need them. Watches remain on our wrists. HomePods can be tucked away unobtrusively in corners, and remain fully useful. HomeView needs to be in a prominent location for its display to serve any practical purpose. Apple’s initial pitch for it doesn’t earn that prominence for me.

Nine years after first trying to resurrect the Roadster, Tesla is apparently trying again. CEO Elon Musk might have relocated its HQ to Texas, but yet again he has returned to California’s showbiz industry to hawk his wares; last time it was a Hollywood back lot for the remote-controlled Cybercab demo, last night it was decades-old stunt technology to make a show car do tricks in the air. [...]

Musk claims that the Roadster will go into production by 2028. But the CEO has a long and glorious history of overpromising and underdelivering; in 2017 he told attendees at the previous launch that “We are making it now.” Using the company’s referral program, some people were in line to receive two free cars. But those free cars never showed up, and neither did the ones that people put down $50,000 deposits for; last year Sam Altman discovered how hard it can be to get that money back.

I like a good stunt show as much as the next guy, and this looked like a cool stunt show. But people are losing their minds if they think this stunt show makes it any more or less likely that Tesla will deliver a Roadster as promised. This Reuters story makes it sound like they think Tesla is going to sell cars that do this stuff. Last night’s stunt show has no more bearing on actual production cars Tesla may or may not ship than George Lucas’s Star Wars movie had on Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile defense system.

The Tesla Roadster is vaporware. But Elon Musk is very good at distracting from unshipped vaporware by delivering on stunts. Two years ago it was robots that were totally faked. Last night’s car stunt involved real things that actually happened but only in the way that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty “disappear”.

Over at Jalopnik, Amber DaSilva has another good take, which concludes:

Tesla has long made up specs for its cars, made wild claims that weren’t substantiated by users, and now it’s making more big impressive claims. The “cars” used for the demos were likely nothing more than shells outfitted with exactly enough equipment to make the tests work. The 0.81 second zero-to-60 number wasn’t even shown with an on-screen timer during the event, let alone independently verified. Tesla has yet to prove anything about the new Roadster works in the real world, or could even exist within the realm of physics that those of us not named Musk occupy.

Roadster preorders have reopened, with the company once again taking $50,000 checks to reserve a car that’ll theoretically be made two years from now. It hasn’t yet said what will happen to the people who placed a reservation for the car Tesla announced nine years ago, which looks and functions completely differently to the one that bears its name today. And — arguably most concerning — we don’t know, if Tesla rakes in more money off the Roadster name, just how much will go to some malicious end.

And on Threads, Benedict Evans reiterates his longstanding take on what makes Elon Musk so confounding to so many people:

A long time ago, I described Elon Musk as a bullshitter who delivers. This is the perfect expression of that. This car was first shown a decade ago, with another stunt, and it never shipped. Now there’s another stunt, and another huge wave of PR and admiration.

But meanwhile, there’s the scaled car company, and the self-landing rockets!

Henry Ford was a brilliant industrialist, a terrible manager and a racist piece of shit. Several things can be true at once.

If you think Musk is either completely legitimate and trustworthy or an utter fraud, you are wrong. He has led his companies to extraordinary accomplishments, and he has made promises based on complete bullshit. He is a shameless bullshitter who sometimes delivers. The sometimes is implicit in Evans’s take, because if he always delivered, there’d be no bullshit. But I think it’s worth including the sometimes to make the point. And some of the things he’s delivered are so amazing that they sure sounded like they might be bullshit when they were announced. “Space internet” sounded like total bullshit when Musk announced it in 2015, but it started rolling out in 2020, and today you can just buy it at Best Buy for $350.

Tesla makes some tremendous vehicles. Their self-driving technology is the best in the consumer market. (Not as good as Waymo’s, but you can’t buy a Waymo.) So maybe they will ship a great Roadster in 2028. I’ll pay attention if and when they do. But I wouldn’t bet a nickel that they will. And I wouldn’t bet that they won’t, either.

The new Apple TV 4K features three far-field microphones, letting users control what they’re watching and discover new shows completely hands-free. Advanced echo cancellation intelligently isolates a user’s voice from background sound to deliver crystal-clear “Hey Siri” or “Siri” recognition, even while audio is playing.

This is nice, but I don’t think it buys me anything, because my existing Apple TV 4K is paired with 2nd-gen HomePods, and the HomePods each have a “four-microphone design for far-field Siri”.

The A19 chip in the new Apple TV 4K delivers up to 50 percent faster CPU performance and up to 2× faster GPU performance than the previous generation, for greater responsiveness, faster navigation, and smoother animations. The A19 chip also includes a new, dedicated AV1 decoder, enabling more efficient, high-quality streaming while using less bandwidth.

The new AV1 decoder seems like it might be meaningful, but does anyone think UI navigation and animation smoothness is improved by going from the A15 to the A19 SoC? I mean navigation is going up/down/left/right. I’m sure the graphics and CPU improvements matter for gaming, but the only mention of gaming in Apple’s own Newsroom announcement is this sentence: “With Apple Fitness+, the living room becomes a workout studio, while Apple Arcade and the App Store’s library of games turn it into a home arcade.” I wish it were otherwise, but gaming is such an afterthought on Apple TV that it only garnered the second half of a sentence that started with Fitness+, a service that has only been in the news this year because Mark Gurman says Apple laid off part of the team.

The new Siri Remote keeps its familiar design while adding Find My support with Precision Finding and an option to play a sound on the remote — making it far easier to locate.

That’s my single favorite feature in the announcement. I hate to say it though, but the previous remote should have supported these features. The 3rd-gen Apple TV 4K came in 2022, but Apple launched AirTags with Precision Finding in 2021. Remote controls are right after keys on the list of things people misplace most frequently, and Apple’s remote controls, because they’re small and thin, are particularly susceptible to being snatched by couch-cushion gremlins. Speakers, so the remote can play a sound to help you find it, were invented even earlier than 2021.

Pairing HomePod with Apple TV 4K already offers users an immersive viewing experience that’s easy to set up, and the new Apple TV 4K takes it even further. For the first time, users can create a four-speaker surround sound experience with Apple TV 4K (4th generation) and HomePod mini 2. The four speakers work together with Apple TV 4K to intelligently recognize their position in the room so audio timing and levels are automatically calibrated to the space. HomePod (2nd generation) can also be used in this four-speaker setup for the ultimate audio experience, as long as the front and rear speaker pairs match.

This is tempting to try. In other words, in addition to the two 2nd-gen HomePods I already have paired in my living room, I can add two of the new HomePod Mini 2’s behind the sofa for surround sound.

The elephant in the room, though, is price. Before this week, Apple sold two models of the 3rd-generation Apple TV. On a percentage basis, they were hit the hardest of any products Apple sells by the company’s across-the-board price increases this summer:

	Before	June 25	Change
HomePod	$300	$350	17%
(Old) HomePod Mini	$100	$130	30%
(Old) Apple TV 64 GB	$130	$200	54%
(Old) Apple TV 128 GB	$150	$250	67%

The new Apple TV 4K announced this week only comes in one model, and it costs $300. It’s great that there’s only one model for simplicity’s sake, but the number one complaint when the previous generation cost $130/150 was that it was too expensive compared to set-top boxes and sticks from Amazon and Roku. (Or the “free” option of using the “smart TV” software that comes with every TV set.) Now, with the new Apple TV, it’s twice as expensive — and Apple is not keeping the 3rd-gen models around as lower-priced options. I still think it’s worth it, personally, but the general consumer market thought the old prices were too high and I don’t see any of the new features making Joe or Jane Consumer think, “Sure, I was skeptical about the old one at $130, but this new model — which looks exactly the same — this seems worth $300.”

HomePod Mini 2 now costs $150. That’s not too much of an increase over the new-since-June-25 $130 price for the old HomePod Mini, but it’s a stiff 50 percent increase from the old HomePod Mini’s $100 price from November 2020 through June 24 this year. I generally round Apple’s prices up from their “99” values, but it’s worth noting that what I’m calling $100 was actually $99, and going to just two digits does have a psychological effect on buying behavior. Again, I think $150 is a reasonable price for the HomePod Mini 2, but it doesn’t feel as much like a lark as $99 did. $99 was a bit of a “Sure, let’s get another one” price; $150 is more of a “Do we really need another one of these?” price.

At the old pre-June prices, you could buy a 128 GB Apple TV and a pair of HomePod Minis for $350 ($150 + $100 + $100). Four short months later, with today’s new models, that combination would cost $600 ($300 + $150 + $150). That price difference is much more striking than any of the new and improved features in the products.

AuthKit lets you:

• Offer SSO, MFA, passkeys, passwords, email codes, and social sign-in
• Add and remove users automatically with SCIM provisioning
• Track who did what with audit logs

Try AuthKit →

X is the only place these posts go. Same for Greg Joswiak’s account. Lighthearted stuff too, like Cook “introducing” Ternus to Pikachu back in August. You may not like it that X has re-found its footing under Elon Musk’s ownership, but it has. I’m citing Apple executives here but they’re far from alone. There are hundreds of interesting people and accounts I follow that post on X very regularly and do not post anywhere else at all. As a word nerd I love Merriam-Webster’s account — fun, clever, smart posts every day. That’s just one example among hundreds. Here’s another. Fascinating new apps are being shown and discussed on X and nowhere else.

[Update: I stand corrected — Merriam-Webster does have an account on Bluesky. It contains a subset of the items they post to X. They’ve posted 34 original new tweets on X so far in October; only 10 on Bluesky. Plus on X they’ve chimed in with 11 clever and/or informative retweets from other accounts, including one from those notorious fascists at Sesame Street; there are zero of those on Bluesky. So while I regret the error of implying that Merriam-Webster posts exclusively on X, the 45-10 count for October to date proves my point just as well.]

I see more interesting posts on X than I do on Threads, Bluesky, and Mastodon combined. I wish that weren’t so but it is. Most people don’t want to think about politics so they don’t. Those people, when they want to participate in a Twitter-like social network, go to X.

And I can’t blame anyone. The only network that compares to X, size-wise, is Threads — but Threads’s algorithm is weirder than X’s now, and the content I see there is relatively boring. My Threads timeline is full of engagement bait without being engaging. And if you want to judge a platform by its owner, “I’m grossed out and/or appalled by Elon Musk so I’m going to Mark Zuckerberg’s joint” isn’t a way to avoid being grossed out and/or appalled by the owner. Bluesky and Mastodon are too small for most people to care about — and, worse, they are the networks where politics are, in my experience, unavoidable. You can have a discussion about cool new use cases and tools for AI on X and people just discuss the tools and use cases. On Bluesky and Mastodon it’s difficult to have such discussions without arguments from people who (a) believe all use of AI is unethical, and (b) will shove their viewpoints into your replies.

The culture on X today is remarkably friendly and inclusive. It is a cheerful place. That cheerfulness is another differentiator. If you believe the world is falling apart and doomed only to get worse, that our obvious and real problems cannot be surmounted, X is not the platform for you. If you think the world is full of fun and amazing people and things, that humanity’s defining feature is our collective ability to solve any problem, that the only time better to be alive than today is tomorrow, it might be.

If you have stayed away, or even just mostly away, from X for years and then come back, people just say things like “Hey, glad you’re back!” On the other networks, especially Mastodon, they tell you you’re “feeding Nazis” — by going to the platform where Tim Cook posts Pikachu videos. These people have either lost their minds or refuse to check their prior assumptions. (Most of the ones who chime in about it publicly are the lost-their-minds types.)

But the bigger problem is that there’s little action on Bluesky or, especially, Mastodon. There’s a lot of activity on Threads, but little action. There is action on X. I’ve said for years that Mastodon is my favorite of the bunch and in a way it still is, but really that’s because when I go there I don’t have to be diligent to avoid wasting time. I avoid wasting time on Mastodon because there’s so little of interest to see. That’s a feature — for me — but it certainly isn’t what most people are looking for in a Twitter-like posting platform. They want action. The action is on X.

Without any fanfare — perhaps to avoid his ire — X has de-Musked its algorithm. I stopped visiting at all when the algorithm there was putting Musk’s own tweets into my timeline, every time I checked, despite the fact that I never followed him. But they don’t do that anymore. I don’t see much politics of any kind in my timeline, and what I do see is from accounts I chose to follow. I see tech (including a lot of interesting breaking news), sports (including a lot of interesting videos and stats), and stupid stuff that’s actually funny. My only problem with X now is that I do have to pay attention to avoid wasting time when I visit.

Plus, in addition to the tweets, there are now many interesting people using X to post entire essays and blog posts. I wish that weren’t so, for multiple reasons (e.g., no RSS). But it is so.

If you returned from exile on a desert island and took a look at X today for the first time in a year, you might reasonably guess that Elon Musk got bored and sold it while you were away. I do think he got bored micromanaging it, but the rank muskiness that permeated the platform after he took over is — for now, at least — gone.

We give developers powerful APIs to build incredible capabilities into their apps for Apple products, backed by a set of controls designed to protect users’ private data. Full Disk Access largely sidesteps these controls in order to allow backup apps to function properly on the Mac. Some developers are using Full Disk Access in ways that could put users at risk, exposing everything on their systems — including files, mail, messages, and even browsing history — without users’ full knowledge and understanding. For communication apps, this can also compromise the privacy of the people users are communicating with.

Going forward, we will introduce additional controls to ensure that users who genuinely wish to grant an app this extraordinary level of access can only do so with very explicit user action. Addressing this is critical. As AI agents become increasingly capable and autonomous, the risks associated with this level of access will grow substantially. We are committed to ensuring users clearly understand these risks before granting such access, so they can make informed decisions about their own data and privacy.

They don’t name names, but clearly this is in response to Meta Muse (cf. Jason Aten’s misadventure with Muse accessing Aten’s iMessages), Grok Bot, Claude, Dots, and the rest. This is why we can’t have nice things.

I really worry about just how much Apple is going to lock Full Disk Access down. I use it with several apps that couldn’t function properly without it, and would be severely hampered if I needed to authorize it manually every time they do something.

But before we Mac power users riot in Cupertino, we should note that we have no idea how many unsophisticated Mac users are calling Apple and queuing up at the retail store Genius Bars to complain about Muse and these other agents having run amok on their Macs, against their desires, after convincing these users to grant them access. It is a legitimate frustration for the highest-functioning users among us that the Mac has, for years, already seemed “too locked down”. But there are now around 150 million Mac users worldwide. Most of them are unsophisticated technically — a majority of them, profoundly so. Many of them have technical needs that cannot be met by the baby computer OS that is iPadOS. For a lot of them it might just be the ability to run the real version of Google’s Chrome web browser — or even the desktop version of Safari. So there are tens of millions of people who need to use a Mac to do things that cannot be done on an iPad, but who have zero understanding of what it means, say, to grant Muse permission for Full Disk Access. And then they think it is Apple’s fault that Muse is suddenly able to read their private iMessage conversations.

(Anyone out there who, say, works at an Apple retail store and can confirm whether this is an escalating support issue — one way or the other — I’d love to hear from you, confidentially.)

On iOS (and its tablet variant, iPadOS), you can say OK to every single thing an app like Muse asks for and Muse still won’t be able to read your email or end-to-end encrypted messages from iMessage or WhatsApp. There is no level of permission that grants third-party apps permission for such things. (The EU wants to force Apple to allow that under the DMA.) MacOS isn’t like that. You still need to grant apps permission for such things, but if you say OK to everything an app like Muse asks for on the Mac, you’re granting that app access to, effectively, almost everything on your startup drive. There are still some things it can’t see, but not many. A lot of non-technical Mac users do not understand this and cannot be expected to understand this. They just think, wrongly, that Apple protects them from allowing anything truly dangerous, because that’s how their iPhone (and/or iPad) works. So they just click OK to every access request from Muse and presume they’re still largely protected.

Hopefully Apple has in mind a solution to this situation that will still enable knowledgeable power users to confirm agreement to a sufficiently scary warning and put their Macs in a state similar to what we have today. I worry. What alleviates my worst fears is the knowledge that every technical user at Apple itself needs to use their Mac as the powerful Unix workstation OS that it is. Some of us need dangerously powerful tools. Most Mac users, however, do not — and don’t realize they’re using a dangerously powerful Unix workstation with a very friendly (literal) face.