My Kitchen HomePod is about to die — what will I replace it with?
"Hey Siri, set a ten-minute timer," I bark, as my pot of pasta reaches the boil."Hey Siri, set a timer for half an hour," I shout over the extraction fan as I slide a tray of cookies into the oven. I don't think anyone in our family could live without a smart speaker of some kind in the kitchen anymore, even if it doesn't act as a music player anymore now that we've shifted away from Apple Music.
But, unfortunately, the HomePod mini that's served me faithfully is in trouble. It's been in a wet, hot, noisy environment for too long, and it's on the way out. My poor kitchen HomePod is becoming hard of hearing, and disobedient as it gets commands wrong or even downright ignores them.
So what am I going to put in its place? We're not really a solely Apple home anymore, as I've ditched my iPhone for the superior audio chops of an Android handset. Siri no longer dominates our lives — so where should I go next for our kitchen audio fix? I've got a couple of the best smart speaker options in mind.
My new kitchen smart speaker needs to fulfill a couple of important criteria. There needs to be at least decent sound, so that I don't have to cart a Bluetooth speaker into the kitchen when I want to cook a roast dinner.
It also needs to support some form of smart assistant, but it doesn't need to be particularly smart. I'm not going to ask it for life advice, but I will ask it to manage a couple of timers and requests like "please play Between The Flesh And The Void by Deicide."
It should be relatively compact, because the kitchen isn't massive. A battery would be a nice extra this time around, but I also understand that's going to be trickier. So — who's made it to the shortlist?
Google's smart speaker lineup has been on my radar for some time. They're all very reasonably priced, and, by virtue of the company that makes them, they keep getting updated to support the latest Google Home features. The smallest of the bunch, the Google Home mini has been at the top of the list for HomePod mini replacements — and I'll tell you for why.
It's around the same size as the smart speaker it will be replacing, and features much the same in regards to voice control. I would be able to ask the speaker for timers while I cook something, and even ask it to play music from Tidal if I link my accounts.
There are some unknown quantities that put me off, however. I'm actually yet to listen to a Google Home mini (I know, I know — not great for an audio editor), so I'm not sure if I'm going to like the sound when I get it. I'm also not entirely sure about the way that it looks.
At the moment, however, it's very much still in the running for kitchen addition.
Google's smallest smart speaker is a great way to get Google Assistant into a living space. Ask it all the questions you normally would your phone, and it will answer without you needing to pull your screen out of your pocket. It's cheap too — a great addition to any Google smart home.
The next logical step, given my family and their waning-but-still-present loyalty to the Apple brand, would be to pick up another HomePod — that could be the HomePod 2, or a new HomePod mini. There's part of me that wants to, given that my mom is finally used to using "Hey, Siri" commands and that they're easily some of the best-looking smart speakers around, but I do have my reservations.
Nobody in the house uses Apple Music anymore — we've all switched to Tidal or Qobuz — so we wouldn't be able to use Siri to choose music. I've also learned after the current HomePod that their fabric surfaces don't do well when surrounded by a kitchen environment. Our white HomePod looks horrible.
Yet I cannot deny the convenience of Apple's HomePod — so it stays on the list for now.
Apple's 2nd-generation HomePod brings Spatial Audio with Apple Music to the table, along with a host of other smarts. Ask Siri just about anything, and she'll do it. It does only really work with Apple devices though, so that's worth bearing in mind.
I like Sonos' smart speakers. They are incredibly easy to use, they generally sound pretty good, and they often feature solid battery life if they're portable. I use a Sonos Move 2 every day in my bedroom, so what would be the harm in packing one into the kitchen for timer and tunage duties?
The sound would be far superior to the other options, be that the smaller Sonos Roam, a less expensive and non-portable Sonos Era 100, or the larger and portable Move 2. The integration into my Roon whole-home audio system would be a game changer, and it would look good sitting on my countertops.
But, there would be some downsides. Nothing that Sonos makes is cheap, often being more expensive than even the Apple alternative, let alone the Google Home Mini. They tend not to be quite as durable either, and I'd be concerned that a rogue wooden spoon could cause issues.
Yet I do find their sound to be tantalizing enough that they might be worth putting in my kitchen, so on the list they stay.
The Sonos Roam 2 is the brand's smallest WiFi-connected speaker, making it perfect for smaller rooms or taking on the go. It sounds great for something so small, and features all the same great smart features as its larger cousins. Voice control, internet connection, and more.
If I were going for convenience and portability above all else, then a Bose SoundLink Max or similar Bluetooth speaker might be just the ticket. Thanks to built-in batteries, I'd be able to move them around the kitchen should I need to, and they often have more rugged builds so that they can last a bit longer.
Some would even support voice control when connected to a compatible device — it might mean calling out to Gemini, but there's a good chance I'd still be able to make new timers so that I don't burn my fresh batch of bakewell tarts.
But there would be some issues. The Bluetooth speakers that would fit the bill are all a bit more expensive, and they'd lack the WiFi connection that would make them smart. They'd have to be turned on and off, whereas the other options on the list live in permanent standby, awaiting my command.
A Bluetooth speaker might not be the perfect alternative, but there are some good reasons that one might replace my stricken HomePod.
The Bose SoundLink Max is loud and proud — and it sounds good too. Bluetooth connection makes it a solid way to listen to music, and rugged build makes sure it'll survive anything life might throw at it. It's not cheap, but it's very good.
At the moment, I'm veering towards another HomePod alike — most likely the Google Home mini. Sound quality is not the utmost importance in the kitchen, and its smart features seem like the most useful thing to me and my family.
But I can't help but be tempted by the alternatives. Maybe I'll end up putting speakers in the ceiling, and relying on a more integrated setup. Although that would likely cost the earth. Still, one can dream...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Experts Predict Whether Apple Stock Can Make You Rich by 2035
Just over a year ago, The Motley Fool asked whether Apple would be a trillion-dollar stock by 2035. Hitting the $1 trillion valuation mark is a rare and phenomenal achievement for any company, but for Apple, it would be a colossal failure, considering its market cap was $2.6 trillion at the time (and it's now at $2.9 trillion). Speculating on the future fortunes of Apple stock is a fun exercise. In fact, back in January, Insider Monkey wrote about 15 stocks that ChatGPT predicted could make investors wealthy in 10 years, and the chatbot ranked Apple No. 1, ahead of Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta Platforms and Nvidia. Read Next: Learn More: For beginner and seasoned investors, a far more interesting question would be whether Apple stock can make you rich by 2035. To answer this, GOBankingRates asked real-life industry experts whether investing in Apple stock could make you wealthy by 2025. Also see three reasons to keep an eye on Apple stock. Regardless of the quantity of shares you own, an active, expensive stock may yield an overall higher percentage gain than lower-priced stocks, but you might need to spend a lot to make a little. Is investing Apple at close to $200 a share worth it? 'Apple remains a dominant company with strong fundamentals, recurring revenue and massive cash reserves,' Dan Buckley, chief analyst and contributor at the free online trading resource told GOBankingRates. 'But expecting to make a lot from it in 10 years is unrealistic unless you're investing substantial capital.' Julia Khandoshko, an expert in tech and capital markets and CEO of leading tech and financial engineering hub Mind Money, agreed. 'There is a false perception that large technology companies like Apple are still growing as startups, and many investors expect them to have the same breakthrough growth,' Khandoshko said. 'However, for some reason, the fact that they have turned into grown and stable businesses is ignored.' 'There is no doubt Apple has been very successful, but shares are currently trading on a forward P/E (forward price-to-earnings ratio based on estimates of future earnings for the coming 12 months) of 27, and that is too rich for me,' said Vince Stanzione, CEO and founder of First Information and author of The Millionaire Dropout. For comparison, the S&P is hovering around a forward P/E of almost 22 right now. 'Make no mistake, Apple is a cash cow and users are tied into the Apple brand and app store ecosystem, but Apple reminds me of an ageing rock band living off old hits and royalties,' Stanzione added. Check Out: There's also the question of the intense competition Apple faces now and in a tech-reliant, tech-investing future. 'The company faces increasing competition, regulatory pressures and the challenge of keeping pace with new innovations, which could lead to periods of slower growth compared to its past trajectory,' Buckley said. People trust brands probably more than they should. But if a company misses on a product or falls behind emerging tech, loyalty goes out the window. For Apple, 'services now carry a big piece of the load: High-margin, recurring revenue [are] tied to the iPhone,' said David Materazzi, CEO and founder of Galileo FX, the popular automated trading platform. However, that's the catch, he explained. 'The more Apple shifts to services, the more it still depends on hardware. Without new hit products, that becomes a treadmill. People assume the brand protects them. It doesn't. It attracts them, then it demands performance. It's priced for precision,' Materazzi said. 'So, if we're not expecting any major breakthroughs from Apple, we should view it as a company that thrives on its large, loyal customer base and generates steady income from it,' Khandoshko said. 'From this perspective, Apple is a solid long-term investment with predictable cash flows — but it's not the kind of stock for speculation or chasing exponential returns.' You can't argue with Apple's performance; it continues to drive the tech industry and its market cap continues to increase. However, in the next 10 years, a downturn isn't out of the question. Stanzione summed up what all the experts we asked felt. 'I don't believe Apple will disappear in the next decade, but unless some amazing new product comes out soon it's turning into a utility type stock that will give you a decent return and a small dividend but not make you fantastically rich in my opinion,' he said. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy This article originally appeared on Experts Predict Whether Apple Stock Can Make You Rich by 2035 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 Things To Know About Warren Buffett's Investments in Tech
The Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, is notorious for avoiding investments he doesn't fully understand. Over the years, he's skipped out on investing in tech stocks because of this. Not that this has kept him from building a substantial wealth — he's got an estimated net worth of $154 billion. See More: Read Next: But there's something to be said for embracing change. Over the years, Buffett's investing strategy has transformed in key ways. More recently, he's invested in certain tech and artificial intelligence (AI)-related stocks. Here's Buffett's specific investments that led to his foray into tech. According to Columbia Business School, Buffett's investing strategy has its roots (1941) in the Benjamin Graham school of value investing, which entails picking stocks that are priced lower than their intrinsic worth, based on company fundamentals like their earnings, assets, dividends and prospects. Trending Now: He bought his first stock when he was 11 years old for about $38 a share, per CNBC. It was in Cities Service Preferred, a natural gas company that no longer exists. Buffett's investments didn't stop with natural gas, but it wasn't until much later that he began investing in tech in 1959. When he was 29, he met Charlie Munger, the man who'd later become his business partner at Berkshire Hathaway, per From then on, his investments began to vary. Over the years, some major investing moves have included: Purchasing shares of Berkshire Hathaway for $8 apiece at age 32 (and beyond) Purchasing shares of American Express for $35 apiece at age 34 until he owned 5% of the company Investing $4 million in Walt Disney Corp at age 35 Since teaming up with Charlie Munger, he's also invested in a multitude of companies spanning real estate, media, insurance, railway services and more — to eventually include tech. The early 2010s is when Buffett began making significant moves in the tech space. Here's a timeline: In 2011, Buffett invested in IBM (Tech Services). He bought shares 14 additional times, sold shares six times and ultimately sold his entire stake by the start of 2018. Starting in 2012, Buffett began investing in VeriSign. As of 2024, he owned just over 13 million shares of the stock, according to MarketWatch. That's an estimated $2.7 billion. At the start of 2016, he began investing in Apple. His total shares are worth just over $67 billion. Apple stock makes up nearly a quarter of his entire portfolio, according to Nasdaq. Since the 2010s, Buffett has expanded his portfolio to include AI-related stocks. Here are some of the big ones: Domino's Pizza: Through Berkshire Hathaway, he owned roughly 1.3 million shares at the end of last year for a total estimated $550 million value, according to the Financial Post. Notably, Domino's is AI-adjacent as it uses AI in many ways, including through Microsoft's Azure platform, which helps with efficient and predictive ordering. Amazon: Berkshire Hathaway has sold Amazon shares over the past years, but the company still owns roughly 10 million shares worth just shy of $2 billion, per Stockcircle. They began purchasing shares around 2019. As tech continues to evolve, there's a good chance that Buffett will continue to invest in the industry — including companies that prominently use AI. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value 7 Luxury SUVs That Will Become Affordable in 2025 This article originally appeared on 4 Things To Know About Warren Buffett's Investments in Tech Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Verge
44 minutes ago
- The Verge
Inside the courthouse reshaping the future of the internet
The future of the internet will be determined in one building in Washington, DC — and for six weeks, I watched it unfold. For much of this spring, the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in downtown Washington, DC, was buzzing with lawyers, reporters, and interested onlookers jostling between dimly lit courtrooms that hosted everyone from the richest men in Silicon Valley to fired federal workers and the DOGE-aligned officials who terminated them. The sprawling courthouse, with an airy atrium in the middle and long, dark halls that spring from it, is where cases involving government agencies often land, and that meant it was hosting two of the most consequential tech cases in the country, all while fielding a flurry of unprecedented lawsuits against President Donald Trump's administration. Between mid-April and late May, Judges James Boasberg and Amit Mehta respectively oversaw FTC v. Meta and US v. Google, a pair of long-running antitrust lawsuits that seek to split up two titans of Silicon Valley. Over the same period, several DC judges — including Boasberg — had a full docket of cases related to Trump's first 100 days in office, covering the administration's attempt to mass-deport immigrants, strip security clearance from law firms, and fire thousands of federal workers. On the first day of the Google trial, a sign with a comically contorted arrow directed visitors toward their chosen antitrust case. It was soon joined by directions to the high-profile hearing over Trump's order against law firm Jenner & Block. While the FTC's lawyers were calling witnesses against Meta in one courtroom, a nearby room was hosting arguments about whether Trump could fire two of the agency's own commissioners. My colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box For reporters, the weeks were an exercise in constant case-juggling. During the overlap of Google and Meta, I'd arrive to long security lines that would sometimes jut into the small park that adjoins the courthouse, waiting to hunt down a media room that streamed video for reporters and avoid the electronics-free courtrooms. I'd occasionally show up to find out no such room existed, and in a small stampede of reporters, I'd rush up a few flights of spiral stairs to the courtroom, scribbling handwritten notes from the back rows. One day, my colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box — in the brief moment before reporters realized Mehta was taking a quick break for a criminal hearing, they wondered which high-profile tech executive it was. The executives, for their part, were plentiful. On one day a witness box saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praising Instagram's success; a week later, former colleague and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom sat there describing him as a jealous boss. Google CEO Sundar Pichai would soon testify a couple floors up, followed by executives at some of Google's biggest rivals, including Microsoft and OpenAI. For all of them, the stakes were high. Judge Boasberg is tasked with determining whether Meta built an illegal monopoly by gobbling up Instagram and WhatsApp, while Judge Mehta will decide whether Google must spin off its Chrome browser or syndicate its search data. For the judges, the gauntlet seemed nothing short of exhausting. Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court in DC, had been assigned to the Meta case long before Trump took office, but after the inauguration, he became one of the busiest judges in America — overseeing a challenge of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, and a lawsuit over Trump's cabinet's use of encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate about attack plans. As I concluded a day of the Meta trial at 5PM, a fresh crop of reporters arrived to cover Boasberg's consideration of the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump was using to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Outside the courtroom, Boasberg fielded attacks from Trump — who labeled him a 'Radical Left Lunatic' and a 'troublemaker and agitator' and called for his impeachment. At the Meta trial, Boasberg appeared even-keeled — sometimes to the point of boredom. He rarely mentioned the rest of his docket beyond subtle references to his overflowing schedule; his interventions were astute, signaling a deep understanding of the case. But he'd often sit with his head in his hand, only occasionally gently encouraging attorneys to move on from a particularly tedious line of questioning. He used a lunch break in the Meta trial to file one of the most scathing legal rulings of the early Trump administration, accusing the administration of 'willful disregard' for his temporary restraining order on deportation flights to El Salvador, with 'probable cause' to find it in criminal contempt. By the Meta trial's end in late May, Boasberg sounded relieved as the final day wrapped. 'I will take a welcome respite from thinking about this between now and when the first brief is due,' he told the attorneys. In 1998, the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse played host to another tech giant fighting for its life: Microsoft. US v. Microsoft was a landmark monopoly case that determined the company had illegally wielded its dominance over Intel-compatible PC operating systems to tamp down threats to its monopoly, including up-and-coming web browsers like Netscape. But in the wake of that case and subsequent settlement, regulators took a hands-off approach to the next generation of tech companies. It would take two decades for the government to return to the battleground — until 2020, when the cases against Meta and Google were filed. The search and social networking landscape has changed dramatically in the last five years, with the rise of TikTok and generative AI. But so too has the zeitgeist around tech. As Silicon Valley remains politically embattled, the goal of more aggressive antitrust enforcement has won bipartisan support. At the same time, there's a growing fear of foreign competition, particularly from TikTok, which appeared in the very same courthouse last year to argue against a (since-delayed) nationwide ban. The company found itself back there as a witness during Meta's trial, where lawyers confronted a TikTok executive with statements made during its failed 2024 fight. Those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it Inside the courthouse, it was easy to forget about everything else going on in Washington — until it wasn't. I was removed from the day-to-day antics of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hacking away at the federal workforce, but the cases about its handiwork — including gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — kept winding through court. During a break on the fourth day of Meta's trial and days before the start of Google's, I got a New York Times push notification walking back from the bathroom, telling me Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema had ruled against Google in the DOJ's separate ad-tech antitrust case. I hustled back to the media room and found several of my colleagues from other outlets already in the hallway writing up their stories. Of course, we commiserated, a decision we expected months ago would drop right now. Rulings in this spring's Google and Meta trials will likely take months to arrive, and their fallout probably won't be seen for years. But those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it. During the early 2010s, Facebook executives expressed fears that Google might buy WhatsApp and bundle it with Android, giving itself a stranglehold over mobile messaging. With the context of the Google trial, that fear looks prescient — the company cemented its search dominance by making Android phone makers preinstall its search engine in the same way. It's also possible to see the shape of giants yet to rise. Should Judge Mehta order Google to sell Chrome, several witnesses said they'd be more than happy to buy it, including Yahoo, Perplexity, and OpenAI. The Justice Department's landmark antitrust trial against Microsoft is widely credited with opening up the tech industry for innovative players like Google, and a quarter-century later, there's hope something similar could happen for new companies today. Yet it seems equally possible that in another decade or two, we'll be back in this same courthouse, hearing the government argue they've nailed the doors shut once again.
