But I really don't understand - that would require the dock to have a screen, a SoC, mic's etc. That would be a completely different and much more expensive piece of hardware.
No way they could have included that with the tablet, unless they called it a bundle (which is what it would have been) and charged more.
Oh I see, so just the dock being a speaker by itself. Interesting. Yeah not sure if it has any real processing in it, or if it's purely driven by the tablet itself when connected.
It's a missed opertunity to add a teeny bit of compute to it. This dock is essentially the same as what Lenovo released a couple years back only that was also a bluetooth speaker.
Yup it's definitely a missed opportunity. We use our Google home devices as intercom. However if the dock is only a Google home device when docked, then it's unreliable as an intercom. So can't really use that feature.
A vendor has produced a device that does what it does, and is marketed at an optimised price point.
Someone has looked at it and said 'this device should be a different device' and claimed that it's a trivial matter to make it more like a device that they want.
I can't dispute they want a different device, but I can dispute it's a) trivial, and b) sensible, for the vendor to have produced a different device instead.
It's a common trope on HN, where the local demographic's expectations and use cases are often much dissimilar to the general population's. And that's okay, so long as we're aware of it.
No, your comment did totally miss the poiint. They were discussing how they believed a better implementation would have been doable, not too expensive, and fulfilled many needs in one device.
Your response was suggesting to just buy a second device. That wasn't useful; they know they can buy a second device, and we know they know that because they mentioned that device originally.
They never asked "How can I have all this functionality in my home?", but that's the question your comment was answering.
> I can dispute it's a) trivial, and b) sensible, for the vendor to have produced a different device instead
Agreed. That would have usefully contributed to the discussion about whether or not it would have been trivial and sensible.
If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bicycle.
It wasn't a 'better implementation' they were proposing, just a different one.
A configuration that would necessarily involve more $'s -- so this would immediately be the opposite of better for people who are happy with the actual existing price & feature matrix.
It would also add more complexity - unique firmware, operational questions around what happens if either / both components are playing music before they are docked / undocked, etc.
The poster was tacitly suggesting an extra $50 for unwanted features was a small price for everyone else to pay for their convenience. I was suggesting their needs could be readily satisfied, without it costing anyone else anything, by them obtaining two discrete units.
