Apple's Early Version of HomePod Stood Three Feet Tall and Packed Dozens of Speakers

[stvon09]

Homepod can sound better than than the $79 echo and google home. However can't do everything they can. The $79 echo is going to sell like crazy this holiday season. Also the new sonos one now has spotify and for $174!!! (half of a homepod). Is the homepod really going to sound 2x better than a SONOS?!! you can wait and find out or just keep waiting and waiting and waiting... for something that costs more, might sound better, and does less.

 

[AppleScruff1]

What “yesterday’s technology” is Apple selling?

Spinning hard drives in the iMac.

 

[Aldaris]

Don’t forget the Mac Pro... using 2013 bits.

 

[Abazigal]

Homepod can sound better than than the $79 echo and google home. However can't do everything they can. The $79 echo is going to sell like crazy this holiday season. Also the new sonos one now has spotify and for $174!!! (half of a homepod). Is the homepod really going to sound 2x better than a SONOS?!! you can wait and find out or just keep waiting and waiting and waiting... for something that costs more, might sound better, and does less.

This is like deja vu all over again.

In 2013, Samsung was ascendent, and the doomsayers were out in force. The arguments were, in broad strokes, the same: hardware innovation was over, and Android’s good enough features, broader hardware base, and lower prices would soon mean that the iPhone would go the way of the Mac relative to Windows.

What played out, of course, was the opposite. Apple went on to sell even more iPhones even as their ASPs increased, while android manufacturers saw their margins nosedive as they all ended up commoditising themselves. Today, I don’t think anyone can say that Apple’s strategy wasn’t the right one.

Then came the Apple Watch, which has gone on to vacuum up all the profits in the wearables market (even the watch industry is beginning to see falling sales). Again, the business model is clear - great hardware differentiated by unique software.

Is this not the very same scenario being played out here? The market is now being flooded with tons of cheap home smart speakers. It is rapidly turning into a race to the bottom where projects are defined by cheap, mediocre hardware powered by digital voice assistants, of which there is no clear consensus on how they ought to be used.

Is no one seeing the wisdom of Apple making sure their HomePod is more than just a microphone connected to the cloud? It's actually astounding to me that there's people in the Macrumors comments who think Apple's approach isn't the right one and that they're somehow going to "lose".

This is exactly the Android vs iOS fight over again. Apple's not going to lose because they have leverage. An installed base of 800 million iOS devices is leverage. Having aggregated the most affluent customers is leverage.

Here’s my prediction right now - the HomePod will sell, and it will be the only smart speaker which actually makes any money.

 

[ipponrg]

Here’s my prediction right now - the HomePod will sell, and it will be the only smart speaker which actually makes any money.

Device profit != user profit.

The device undoubtedly will sell, and Apple will spin that into device profit. However, I am estimating that the bulk of the "Smart" speaker user base will still be on Echo/Google platforms. People are reluctant to be forced into a luxury ecosystem.

For example, AppleTV user base pales compared to the Roku. Apple however is charging $149 for their device. Roku can be purchased for as low as $25. From Variety, "Roku in 2017 will capture 23% of the total U.S. connected-TV user population, followed by 22% for Chromecast, 21.3% for Amazon Fire TV and 12.7% for Apple TV".

Do not mistake hardware profits vs long term user profits.

 

[Abazigal]

The device undoubtedly will sell, and Apple will spin that into device profit. However, I am estimating that the bulk of the "Smart" speaker user base will still be on Echo/Google platforms. People are reluctant to be forced into a luxury ecosystem.

To what end though. What is the strategic advantage to be had for Amazon? I don't think people are suddenly going to start ordering all their groceries online via voice assistants, so the only thing which makes sense is home automation.

Like I said, This is exactly the Android vs iOS fight over again. Android and Amazon didn't pick their strategies because that's what they wanted; it was a necessity if they wanted to compete. No one was going to use Android if it wasn't free and if Google wasn't willing to share revenue split three ways with carriers and OEMs. Likewise, Amazon *must* be open if they want to get any adoption. Amazon has no leverage to entice IoT makers to support Echo/Alexa in the same way Apple imposes requirements on HomeKit makers. If there were an installed base of 800 million Echos in the world already then they would.

The only thing Amazon can do is flood the market with tons of cheap speakers in the hopes of gaining mass adoption and hoping that support from developers and OEMs will follow suit. Apple's not going to lose because they have leverage. An installed base of 800 million iOS devices is leverage. Having aggregated the most affluent customers is leverage. IoT makers are like developers, they'll jump through whatever hoops Apple requires precisely because Apple commands the best spenders in the market.

For example, AppleTV user base pales compared to the Roku. Apple however is charging $149 for their device. Roku can be purchased for as low as $25. From Variety, "Roku in 2017 will capture 23% of the total U.S. connected-TV user population, followed by 22% for Chromecast, 21.3% for Amazon Fire TV and 12.7% for Apple TV".

Roku is essentially an advertising company. That's why they are practically giving their streaming devices away. Roku and Apple are going after two different markets. Roku wants to deliver video ads at scale. Apple is positioning Apple TV as a high-end iOS accessory for playing games and consuming content on a large screen.

Do not mistake hardware profits vs long term user profits.

I am going to need you to unpack the term "user profits". I am guessing it means "value to the user" to some extent, like getting more bang for your buck. No doubt that cheaper hardware has its market, but I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that Apple products are somehow less value for their money simply because they cost more.