Apple Music Now Playable on Amazon Echo Speakers via Alexa in United States

[Jadzea97]

Finally, quick question to folks in the UK---why do you guys always refer to Apple and other companies as "they" or "them?"

Apple is not a person or people. Apple is a corporation. Apple is an "it;" not a "they," or "them."

So, ..."because Apple ARE not heavily invested in it..." would be "because Apple IS not heavy invested in it."

I notice this with UK speakers most of all. Not trying to be nasty---just something I routinely see that I've never understood.

It’s because, in the UK, we address people rather than objects. Usually when thinking about companies we think of the people running the company, rather than the company being some sort of autonomous entity. It’s perhaps ironic though given that we are talking about Siri & Alexa!

 

[8CoreWhore]

Over Black Friday... I bought three Echo Pluses... and two Dots.... 3 Philips Hue dimmable white lights and a Smart Plug all for about $500. I have them everywhere, it sounds and works great.

 

[schmidt65]

Yes that did cross my kind, but then you should have perhaps researched outside Mac Rumors? Also Alexa is flipping amazing!!!! Way way way way better then Siri.
And just remember, Spotify is on Alexa, iOS, Android and the Apple Watch now, so if Apple wants to win Spotify subscribers, like me, then it needs to get this rolled out to other countries..

[doublepost=1544916060][/doublepost]

Well that’s pretty much guaranteed the excellent Echo’s success then, because Apple never have and certainly under Cook never ever will do ‘cheap’ devices.

What do you mean “I should have researched outside macrumors?” I’m referring to the article actually posted by amazon (https://blog.aboutamazon.com/devices/alexa-play-bebe-rexha-on-apple-music), which interestingly enough has now been updated to say ‘in the US’ even though the article posting date still says 30th November!

The original article made no mention of the US only (see screenshot of the original article posted)

Very odd

 

[Shanghaichica]

What do you mean “I should have researched outside macrumors?” I’m referring to the article actually posted by amazon (https://blog.aboutamazon.com/devices/alexa-play-bebe-rexha-on-apple-music), which interestingly enough has now been updated to say ‘in the US’ even though the article posting date still says 30th November!

The original article made no mention of the US only (see screenshot of the original article posted)

Very odd

Oh so this is officially US only. What a disgrace.

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

Over Black Friday... I bought three Echo Pluses... and two Dots.... 3 Philips Hue dimmable white lights and a Smart Plug all for about $500. I have them everywhere, it sounds and works great.

Yeah. I know the HomePod is a niche market. But most ppl are like me. I have an echo dot in my bathroom. A few echo speakers for the bedrooms. And an echo plus in the living room. And they sound fine to me. Most ppl aren’t audiophiles. Plus I have the added advantage of using Alexa.

So this is what I mean. Most ppl aren’t going to spend a lot of money on one single speaker. They will be satisfied with an echo plus and a few echo speakers. Apple missed the mark on that.

 

[Shiro_Simba]

which claim are you disputing? 1.3 billion or 50 million? Both are substantially higher today.

Your fundamental premise that Apple fans are loyal and will buy Apple services , Apple having nothing to worry about given it’s 1.3 billion devices in the wild. Have you forgotten ?

Just asking to support your claim ! The 50 million as a percentage of 1.3 billion helping your claim ? As Spotify has zero devices in the wild .........

 

[Rob_2811]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotif...terly-profit-to-one-time-tax-event-1541068798

This article is hidden behind a paywall, but I found you can bypass it by pasting the link in a website called outline.

https://outline.com/pLRHBU

Their profit was due to their investment in another company. It's not due to their core business and likely will be a one-off affair.



They expect to return to net losses in subsequent quarters.



To do that, Spotify needs leverage, and to get that, Spotify has to grow to become so large that content creators will be willing to pay Spotify for access to its users (something like the iOS App Store). Can it stay around long enough for that? I see it eventually being acquired by either Amazon or Microsoft (the only company without its own music streaming service at the moment).



To me, the main danger from Spotify comes not just from competition (remember, Apple, Amazon, Google each has their own music streaming service), but also from Spotify's core business model. Cost-cutting will only get you so far, and it's increasingly clear to me that Spotify's core business model is never going to be profitable by itself, however may subscribers they get.

Spotify will have to find some other avenues of raising revenue, be it hardware sales, or podcasts, something. And things will only get more heated as Apple Music continues to get more subscribers.

Yes I realise that but all of that was true of Spotifys business model, and of streaming music in general, before Apple Music existed. Apple Music doesn't seem to have significantly damaged Spotifys business at all.

The fact remains that after three and a half years of Apples service Spotify still has more than double the amount of people paying for the service and is still growing. If it gets acquired by one of the big tech companies they will then have a bigger streaming service than Apple.

All this serves to prove is that Apple, touting its future as services one of which nobody has ever made profitable, is all a bit silly. They are going to do well to maintain their revenues on services particularly as they have a terrible history with them.

Truth is the iPhone is running out of steam, iPad sales weren't doing anything for a long time Apple needed to point Wall Street in the direction of something that is showing some growth so they pointed to services.

I don't think they really believe services is a huge growth area I think they're buying time until they see some growth from other areas maybe the Watch or something else they are working on.

How dare you!

Rob had his hopes pinned on that one quarter when Spotify didn’t bleed money like a stuck pig.

Apple has just acquired the rights to a fantasy series where the HomePod hasn't tanked and that Apples future is in services, it's set in your head.

 

[Shiro_Simba]

Yeah. I know the HomePod is a niche market. But most ppl are like me. I have an echo dot in my bathroom. A few echo speakers for the bedrooms. And an echo plus in the living room. And they sound fine to me. Most ppl aren’t audiophiles. Plus I have the added advantage of using Alexa.

So this is what I mean. Most ppl aren’t going to spend a lot of money on one single speaker. They will be satisfied with an echo plus and a few echo speakers. Apple missed the mark on that.

Spot on !

As someone who is into audiophile gear, HomePod Is nice , good speaker for your main room, waste of money to have in additional rooms like kitchen , bedroom etc, where the dot excels . Amazon nailed it with the dot, Apple missed the mark by a margin and got greedy.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Spot on !

As someone who is into audiophile gear, HomePod Is nice , good speaker for your main room, waste of money to have in additional rooms like kitchen , bedroom etc, where the dot excels . Amazon nailed it with the dot, Apple missed the mark by a margin and got greedy.

Well we have to give Apple time. They may still make a cheaper HomePod. It will not be as cheap as the echo dot or home mini but it could come in at £199.

However I think the purpose of the HomePod is fundamentally different to an Alexa device. The echo is a smart assistant first and speaker second. The HomePod is a speaker with smart features.

 

[Shiro_Simba]

Well we have to give Apple time. They may still make a cheaper HomePod. It will not be as cheap as the echo dot or home mini but it could come in at £199.

However I think the purpose of the HomePod is fundamentally different to an Alexa device. The echo is a smart assistant first and speaker second. The HomePod is a speaker with smart features.

I agree.

Hence even if I bought one HomePod , I’d buy dots for the other rooms . Though that’s marketing putting a spin on the fact Siri is so far behind the competition here.

As a speaker first, HomePod is flawed, cause it’s missing input connectors , which would make it shine as a speaker . One greedy decision , that holds it back , at the feature its best at.

 

[Arran]

...
1. Multi-user support. Apple is terrible at this. I guess all of their engineers are single and live alone...
2. ....

#1 is absolutely a deal breaker.

Yeah, I had wondered exactly the same thing about #1.

Somewhat bizarrely, Apple released an expensive and hugely creative advert for the HomePod which (unwittingly) cemented the idea that the HomePod is for live-alone singles leading dreary lives:

I absolutely love the ad. As a piece of art it's brilliant, but it sends entirely the wrong message about the product. That, and the fact that the girl who lives in the high-rise apartment building would face complaints from neighbors - possibly eviction - should she crank up the HomePod volume as the ad suggests.

To be brutally honest, she'd be better off with AirPods.

 

[Rob_2811]

Heard from a friend who is an engineer at Amazon that the US only thing is likely to be an Amazon thing rather than something Apple has decided. Apparently Spotify support and a few other Alexa skills were rolled out the same way, US first and then expanded afterwards.

It's been horribly communicated though.

 

[tromboneaholic]

All this serves to prove is that Apple, touting its future as services one of which nobody has ever made profitable, is all a bit silly. They are going to do well to maintain their revenues on services particularly as they have a terrible history with them.

Truth is the iPhone is running out of steam, iPad sales weren't doing anything for a long time Apple needed to point Wall Street in the direction of something that is showing some growth so they pointed to services.

I don't think they really believe services is a huge growth area I think they're buying time until they see some growth from other areas maybe the Watch or something else they are working on.

I'm not sure why you have so much trouble accepting the reality of Apple's services business.

On November 24, you claimed Apple's service revenue for the year was $9.5 billion, when in fact Apple's services revenue was up 27% during the most recent quarter to $9.981 billion.

To put it another way, Apple currently has over 330 million paid subscriptions across its ecosystem, which is 3x more than Amazon.

 

[Rob_2811]

I'm not sure why you have so much trouble accepting the reality of Apple's services business.

I've no problem accepting the reality of their services business.

They make a lot of money selling Apple Care (mainly to people buying iOS devices) and their cut from the App Store selling software for iOS devices. Then there is the huge fee they get from Google to be the default search engine on iPhones.

None of this will help them if iPhone sales start to decline. The App Store has far from a guaranteed future either if the anti trust case gets the go ahead.

It's more short term smoke and mirrors from Cook and co to take away from the real story, the iPhone sales.

You keep telling yourself that their latest Reece Witherspoon drama is going to prop it up though if it makes you feel better.

 

[tromboneaholic]

I've no problem accepting the reality of their services business.

They make a lot of money selling Apple Care (mainly to people buying iOS devices) and their cut from the App Store selling software for iOS devices. Then there is the huge fee they get from Google to be the default search engine on iPhones.

None of this will help them if iPhone sales start to decline. The App Store has far from a guaranteed future either if the anti trust case gets the go ahead.

It's more short term smoke and mirrors from Cook and co to take away from the real story, the iPhone sales.

You keep telling yourself that their latest Reece Witherspoon drama is going to prop it up though if it makes you feel better.

Service revenue has seen double digit growth in the face of lagging iPhone sales.

Customers are holding onto their phones longer, but they aren't switching from one OS to another.

That's the difference (and advantage) with Apple as a service versus other brands.

 

[Rob_2811]

Service revenue has seen double digit growth in the face of lagging iPhone sales.

Customers are holding onto their phones longer, but they aren't switching from one OS to another.

That's the difference (and advantage) with Apple as a service versus other brands.

Thats fine in the here and now but if they get sued for anti trust, and Supreme Court justices seem to be sympathetic to that idea, and lose... bye bye to a large chunk of that services revenue.

The App store revenue accounted for $22 billion of Apple services in the first half of this year. The Apple "advantage" some say, is an illegal monopoly.

There are a lot of question marks about Apples future ability to keep extracting that App Store cash. It isn't the panacea you are making it out to be.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Service revenue has seen double digit growth in the face of lagging iPhone sales.

Customers are holding onto their phones longer, but they aren't switching from one OS to another.

That's the difference (and advantage) with Apple as a service versus other brands.

The longer customers hold onto their devices the more likely they are to subscribe to services.

I agree iphone sales have been flat I.e not growing but they aren’t declining.

 

[tromboneaholic]

Thats fine in the here and now but if they get sued for anti trust, and Supreme Court justices seem to be sympathetic to that idea, and lose... bye bye to a large chunk of that services revenue.

The App store revenue accounted for $22 billion of Apple services in the first half of this year. The Apple "advantage" some say, is an illegal monopoly.

There are a lot of question marks about Apples future ability to keep extracting that App Store cash. It isn't the panacea you are making it out to be.

Your hope for Apple's demise rests upon hypothetical situations involving the US supreme court. You're not only saying the glass is half empty, but that it might break because monsters.

Maybe I view the glass as half full, but I can easily speculate there are future products in Apple's pipeline that will spur growth and attract new users to Apple's ecosystem.

Looking at a post-Steve-Jobs Apple, I think Apple Watch is one of the most important products Apple has ever launched as a tool to improve people's quality of life. It also points to a time in the future where Apple as a service could involve healthcare to some extent. To bring the thread back on topic, Apple Watch also plays Apple Music (with a subscription).

 

[Rob_2811]

Your hope for Apple's demise rests upon hypothetical situations involving the US supreme court. You're not only saying the glass is half empty, but that it might break because monsters.

Maybe I view the glass as half full, but I can easily speculate there are future products in Apple's pipeline that will spur growth and attract new users to Apple's ecosystem.

Looking at a post-Steve-Jobs Apple, I think Apple Watch is one of the most important products Apple has ever launched as a tool to improve people's quality of life. It also points to a time in the future where Apple as a service could involve healthcare to some extent.

I don't hope for Apples demise I just don't hold their stock and feel the need to spend time on the internet puffing up their future business. I've got no financial incentive to do so.

You're kidding yourself if you think that a potential App Store anti trust case is a hypothetical, glass half empty "monster" too. It's a very real possibility at this point, see below.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.417418b049a3


On speculation of future products I agree, I'm sure they've got some compelling hardware in the works, it'll be a big ask to be as big a hit as the iPhone but they've created whole new categories before so I wouldn't rule it out.

Thats the point here though, Apple make their business from hardware, they might make some money from services but the next super compelling product from Apple is going to be hardware based.

Apple have pointed to services because that was an area showing growth at the time, the iPhone isn't anymore and they probably aren't ready to talk about the next new product release.

The future of Apples business isn't in services not by a long way.

 

[apon0209]

One great advantage I’ve noticed: you can play Apple Music on your echo devices and on your iOS device at the same time without a family plan. Big advantage over Spotify which only lets you choose one or the other unless you have a family plan. This is super helpful when I’m out of the house and my fiancé is at home and we want to listen to music at the same time on my Apple Music account.

 

[tromboneaholic]

Thats the point here though, Apple make their business from hardware, they might make some money from services but the next super compelling product from Apple is going to be hardware based.

I came to know about Apple as a consumer who needed a computer. I didn't buy a Mac in 1996 because of the hardware. I bought it because of the software.

Back then, I remember people on the internet arguing over whether Apple was a hardware company or a software company. Maybe it was on this website (if it existed) or XLR8yourmac, but someone mentioned that Apple sold complete "systems," and that idea switched on a lightbulb in my head.

Some people just don't get it. Apple's software is a service, and they have been using that service to sell hardware for decades.

Wall Street has always looked at it the wrong way, and that doesn't matter.

 

[Rob_2811]

I came to know about Apple as a consumer who needed a computer. I didn't buy a Mac in 1996 because of the hardware. I bought it because of the software.

Back then, I remember people on the internet arguing over whether Apple was a hardware company or a software company. Maybe it was on this website (if it existed) or XLR8yourmac, but someone mentioned that Apple sold complete "systems," and that idea switched on a lightbulb in my head.

Some people just don't get it. Apple's software is a service, and they have been using that service to sell hardware for decades.

Wall Street has always looked at it the wrong way, and that doesn't matter.

Yes thats fine but the software isn't for sale independent of the hardware though, you are still buying the hardware.

They are tied together, the future success of these 'services' is dependant on the future success of the iPhone and iPad. If a platform comes along and takes the iOS mindshare the App Store goes with it and that is where the majority of the services revenues comes from.

Thats if an Anti trust suit doesn't force them to change the App Store model first..

 

[Davk87]

chromecast please

 

[tromboneaholic]

Yes thats fine but the software isn't for sale independent of the hardware though, you are still buying the hardware.

Ok Mr. Accountant.

The software made the sale. I don't care what you put on the ledger.

Steve Jobs only came back to Apple as iCEO because they bought his software.

To paraphrase James Carville, (who I actually think is nuts):

"It's the software, stupid."

P.S. "stupid" is not an insult directed towards you, but rather a bit of relevant levity, because I actually enjoy debating these issues with thoughtful people like you (especially when you're wrong).

P.P.S. The logic upon which MacRumors' moderation is based escapes me.

 

[Rob_2811]

Ok Mr. Accountant.

The software made the sale. I don't care what you put on the ledger.

Steve Jobs only came back to Apple as iCEO because they bought his software.

To paraphrase James Carville, (who I actually think is nuts):

"It's the software, stupid."

P.S. "stupid" is not an insult directed towards you, but rather a bit of relevant levity, because I actually enjoy debating these issues with thoughtful people like you (especially when you're wrong).

P.P.S. The logic upon which MacRumors' moderation is based escapes me.

Yes they are selling tens of millions of iPhones every year because of the tiny annual tweaks that are made to iOS.

Deary me..