If you had that kind of devotion to something more useful than a company that doesn't care one bit about you, you'd be very successful. It's really sad to see such strong devotion so misplaced.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sold an Estimated 600,000 HomePod Speakers During the First Quarter of 2018
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you had that kind of devotion to something more useful than a company that doesn't care one bit about you, you'd be very successful. It's really sad to see such strong devotion so misplaced.
This part of your post:
As I said, this is incorrect. Apple does determine this, and not even because they want to, but they have to by law. Just like they have to estimate warranty claims, pilferage, refunds due to defects and returns for other reason.
Apple has to estimate and report their returns quarterly. This gets adjusted later on with actual figures.
Of course it can, but it gets counted against sales regardless of its ultimate fate.
As for this:
I don't think it is moot, because this post:
The post was just asking how many were returned out of the 600,000 that was sold, which in my mind is a valid argument.
Then you asked this:
It matters because it give the whole picture of what is going on. There was reports and threads about low sales and high returns, so if there was a lot of returns, the 600,000 number wouldn't mean much.
But, in terms of just the article, the author could use any metrics they want to use, and leave out what ever metric they want. Just like how use estimated sales for Apple and shipments for Google and Amazon, there could be better ways of comparing and viewing the whole picture.
In my mind, that is what @Z3man was referring to, the fact that sales alone is not painting the whole picture for what is going on for the Home Pod. While it may not have been accounted for in the article, maybe it should have been.
I own shares, so I am interested in good performance. The facts say it’s performing well, so I’m trying to educate you.
You are very right. Amazon is the little darling but they are running on thin ice and it would not take much to disrupt a massive empire like that.
I think it is hard for us and Wall Street even to grasp Apple as a company with the amount of cash assets that it has.
I agree on disruption of their market. They are not doing something that’s super difficult to disrupt. It’s already happening. Even AWS will face competition from IBM, MSFT, etc.
I like Amazon. I like Prime, but what are they really besides a low margin retailer? Walmart still has over 5x the revenues and Amazon prices are quickly becoming more and more expensive. I stopped buying a lot from Amazon. I like the free, fast shipping, but many other retailers offer free shipping too and lower prices.
Amazon will eventually have to start showing profits or the multiple will have to come down.
This just in, products that are 30$-100$ sell more than 350$ ones. In other news, cats have claws.
Yeah, you will probably be right. Though I will retain a bit of hope. Maybe just the limits of the universe of new features you can bring to a set of speaker and microphones connected to the internet will mean Apple can't really come up with that hugely necessary next feature.
Anyway, I'm probably going to be part of the crowd rewarding Apple in any case. I'm likely to buy my second HomePod. And frankly I wouldn't mind a third as well. Or even a fourth for my office at work. But I will try to hold off on 3 and 4 until the second generation.
Thanks for you thoughts.
Regardless, I don’t think there is really any doubt that the iPhone X is doing pretty well. You so desperately want to believe that Apple is failing, even if numbers were provided, you would probably just find some way to twist them in order to prove your narrative.
I can provide some indirect data. Make of it what you will.
https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/iphone_8_X
According to the numbers, iPhone X makes up about 40% of flagship iPhone sales, and close to 30% of all iPhone sales. Not too shabby for a $999+ iPhone.
Ok. I see the difference. I have a dedicated dot (why not $29) named "stereo" that is connected to my stereo surround system. That dot resides inside the closet with my AV rack. Since you can command any alexa device from another device or your phone I just says "play Panatonics on 'stereo' " and one of the dots we have around the house will forward the command.
Unfortunately my receiver does not support Alexa (next one will), so I have to turn it on and off, and select the aux jack as input with the IR remote. I bought a cheap IR repeater and attached it to the wall mounted TV, That repeater routes signal to the IR receivers on the devices in the closet. My next receiver will have alexa built in so I do not have to deal with the separate dot.
Agreed. It’s fair to say though that you’re in the minority there. If I had to guess, I’d bet that the majority of people who are getting a smart speaker for their home (whether amazon, google, or Apple) aren’t huge audiophiles and can’t justify the price difference between the two.
I couldnt justify the price myself. For the price of a HomePod I got 4 echo dots with money to spare. And Alexa beats Siri all day.
Doesn't this look like it's shaping up to the the whole iOS vs android market share argument all over again?
Android has the market share, and google gets the user data, Apple vacuums up all the profits in the market while OEMs get zilch.
Agree that most people aren’t looking for a high quality speaker, especially if they’re even considering the $40-50 products. They are a completely different market from products meant to produce good sound.
$40 dots or Google Home minis, or even $80 echos, are not purchased by those who want to enjoy music through a self-amplified WiFi speaker that sounds really good, with impressive bass.
Those interested in the quality of sound the speaker produces, with or without a voice assistant, buy Sonos, Denon, Harman, Bose, HomePod, Google Home Max or many other options.
You’re a perfect example. You wanted a voice assistant, and you covered your house with the appropriate products. And you have no products that will provide you with great sounding music. Because that’s not what you wanted, or bought. Perfectly fine.
But that’s a completely different requirement from “I want room-filling, good sounding, self-amplified WiFi speakers in four different areas of my home, and I’m willing to pay $800-$1600+ to get it.” And if the voice assistant aspect is very important, HomePod might not even be in the running, depending on your requirements. Likewise if you’re not an Apple Music customer, HomePod may not be a good choice.
Lumping the HomePod or Google Home Max in with the $50 smart mics makes as much sense as a “wearables” category that combines cheap fitness bands with Apple Watch. Or combining sales of disposable $400 laptops with $2,000-3,500 high-end Dell, Lenovo and MacBook Pro.
Last edited:
So not a runaway success like the AirPods but not exactly a failure either. I think Siri’s faults as well as all of the HomePod’s features not being fully ready at launch played a role for sure. The fact that people must use iTunes/Apple Music is another problem.
Amazon’s Alexa products are also cheaper and while they don’t offer the sound quality, they are good enough for most people. Speakers are more of a niche product anyway. I see continued success for the Apple Watch and even Apple TV in the future. Both of these devices still have a lot of untapped potential.
Amazon’s Alexa products are also cheaper and while they don’t offer the sound quality, they are good enough for most people. Speakers are more of a niche product anyway. I see continued success for the Apple Watch and even Apple TV in the future. Both of these devices still have a lot of untapped potential.
Agreed. Additionally, given Apple’s typical international sales numbers, if the HomePod had been widely available rather than only available in the US, UK and Australia I think sales would have been around 1,000,000.
No idea how this compares to Sonos (who I consider to be the biggest competition for HomePod, at least in mindshare) but it seems like a decent launch quarter to me.
Last edited:
Take a look at my other post that shows you exactly how much data each company retains about you. If that doesn’t concern you then that’s your prerogative, a lot of Apple users value this. I’m sorry that the basic logic of companies not stalking you having value escapes you, especially in light of what just happened to Facebook.
I didn’t make any excuses, I said Eddy Cue mismanaged Siri and it is terrible.
Last edited:
It’s still the first generation. Apple Watch has continued to do better and better with each generation. I think they now know what works and doesn’t work. Either they can price them more aggressively or ship a 2nd lower priced option like Amazon does and how Apple themselves did with the iPod Mini and Nano in the 2000s. If they’re willing to allow Spotify support, I think this would also increase adoption rates. Many people don’t use Apple Watch because of the lack of Spotify. I understand Apple being aprehensive about allowing competitors on their platforms but sometimes this is necessary.
This would also force Apple to polish and improve Apple Music as much as possible which would result in a better service that users want to have instead of one being necessary to use the hardware.
Stop moving goal posts. It’s boring. We’re not talking about data being retained. We’re talking about data being sold. Google does not sell your data. Google does collect and retain tons of data about you. No argument. But that’s not what we were talking about.
I made no mention of Facebook. Facebook’s model is different and far more problematic in my mind than Google’s.
If you’re going to make an argument, at least stick to the topic and don’t try to weasel your way into being right just because someone called you out on your inaccuracies. Google does not sell your data.
And yes you did make excuses. Eddie Cue is your excuse, as if you know anything about the inner workings of Apple beyond what you read on rumor sites. Do you work for Apple? Didn’t think so.
@robbyx is correct. Stop moving goal posts and do some simple research. You might be surprised to find out Google has a better stance on privacy than Apple.
https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/google-apple-differential-privacy/
https://decentralize.today/apple-vs...company-handles-your-data-better-a7022bd452b1
If you truly believe that I have some beachfront property in Iowa to sell you.
I'm guessing you have no counter argument or nothing to refute factual data huh? Guess there is no need to respond back to me, especially if your only going to move goalposts.
Just to clarify to clear any confusion. I stated:
“It’s the _sales_ that are factored. They’re not factoring returns. Manufacturers do not determine how many XYZ did we sell and how many XYZ were returned. It’s the initial sale of the product to begin with.”
The Bolded refers to they not factoring returns in this specific article. Which I will say once more, units sold doesn’t diversify over units returned. {Which also by the way, no manufacturer will ever release how many units returned. None of them release that type of information, given it’s just valuable to other competitors.}
Also, I did vaguely say “Manufacturers do not determine how many XYZ did we sell and how many XYZ were returned.”
You mentioned it’s by law, which I would counter and say let’s also not necessarily true. (I won’t name the companies I have worked for), but as I mentioned before, I work for loss prevention for years determining logistics in sales and returns, and many manufactures do not claim/tally returns. For some of those reasons, being that they are either re-sold, remanufactured or they receive a tax credit if the item is returned for various reasons. I understand this is slightly off-topic, but again, something seems that you’re not factoring or somewhat ignorant of.
While this may be true, that’s information that’s never released as I mentioned before for a multitude of reasons, and in terms of actual net sales, the consumer (Or Stock/shareholder) doesn’t care.
Fate? (Slightly off topic again: Just guessing by your post, but I don’t think you have a lot of experience in the sales industry.) In the sense of when you factor the initial sale of a product, units sold doesn’t diversify over units return (Redundant repeat). The success rate of a product that sells far greater than a return, it doesn’t really take away from the net sales. There will always be returns, but I don’t know what ‘Fate’ has to do with anything. (Especially given Company like Apple that sells volumes in units), perhaps a smaller company might be more conscious of this.
Honestly, this part of your post is it not worth discussing. We don’t have any numbers to determine anything, it’s all speculation. We don’t know _and_ will never know the amount returns the HomePod has had because of XYZ reasons. [For example, this would be like the same as arguing about an undetermined score of basketball game that has no statistics to discuss.] I will say it would make it interesting to know the return rate for 600,000 units, given that number is not nearly substantially as high as volume as compared to let’s say the iPad, iPhone or even the Apple Watch/AirPods
I don’t disagree with this. But; we need to focus on the facts of what we do know. Given the content of the article stating about 600,000 units sold, that’s all that’s really worth discussing. Discussing anything about returns is rather frivolous, because we don’t have any initial information that would even lead us to believe otherwise. But I do think it is safe to say that the success rate is much higher than the return rate is given majority are likely very content with the product they purchase, unless it was defective or they changed their mind.
Fair enough. But I think it goes back to the points that I made a few times prior in my post, manufacturers don’t usually release that type of information when it comes to units returned. It’s one of the same reasons why manufactures don’t release specific numbers when it comes to unit sold, it’s usually an estimate or rounded figure. Because that’s all useful information to competitors they can be used against them. What it be interesting yes? Does it take away from the overall success of a product just because something is returned, No. In the tech industry, it’s expected to have returns, because it’s a mass produced item.
Thanks for the discussion.
Last edited: