China Times Echoes Poor HomePod Sales and Rumors About Possible Lower-Priced Version

[Michael Joseph]

expensive, poor design, nothing special....no surprise with poor sale

A new supply chain report out of Taiwan echoes a recent Bloomberg News story suggesting that HomePod sales have been lackluster, but as with most channel checks, it can be difficult to draw accurate conclusions.

Namely, the China Times claims that Apple has reduced its HomePod shipment forecast to 200,000 units or less per month in the second quarter, down from around 500,000 units per month in the first quarter, due to lower-than-expected sales. Apple is also said to revise down its shipment forecast for all of 2018.

HomePod sales may very well be lackluster, as a relatively niche product with an expensive $349 price tag, and given a handful of early reviews that criticized Siri's capabilities, but Apple CEO Tim Cook has previously warned against trying to interpret single data points from the supply chain.

Cook on Apple's first quarter earnings call in 2013:For example, the China Times report only mentions Inventec and a few smaller suppliers affected by the cuts, despite reports that Foxconn would begin assembling HomePods alongside Inventec at some point in 2018. It's possible that Inventec has simply lost a portion of its orders as Apple diversifies its production.

A few months have passed since the HomePod launched, too, so early adopters who were eagerly waiting to purchase the speaker have likely already done so. Just like an iPhone, sales can be expected to be strongest within the first few weeks of availability, followed by a gradual decline over time. Production cuts are to be expected.

Moreover, the HomePod has yet to even launch outside of the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, so sales remain limited geographically. Apple said the speaker will launch in France and Germany later this spring.

If sales are in fact poor, one way that Apple could boost interest is by offering a more affordable HomePod, and today's report echoes rumors about a possible lower-priced version. However, the report predicts that Apple wouldn't launch a revised or cheaper HomePod until at least the fourth quarter of this year.

We'll likely never know exactly how well the HomePod is selling, as Apple said it will group the speaker under its "Other Products" category in its quarterly earnings reports, alongside the Apple Watch, Apple TV, AirPods, Beats, iPod, and more. But we'll be listening to the May 1 earnings call for any potential hints.

Article Link: China Times Echoes Poor HomePod Sales and Rumors About Possible Lower-Priced Version

 

[jeremiah256]

It’s amazing how so many people miss the pattern. Apple releases a high priced device in a new product category that is a barebones base foundation to build on and everyone criticizes them and predicts their doom. Then a few generations in, that product is everywhere and the one to beat.

Apple Watch was a “failure” according to many people posting here. Too expensive (almost double its competitors) and didn’t do enough. Today, 3 generations in, it’s on wrists everywhere and the platform has grown and continues to grow. It’s got the potential to becoming one of Apple’s most successful products.

Speaking of successful products. The iPod was so basic, missing many of the functions of other MP3 players on the market at the time and selling for 2 to 3 times their price. How did that work out?

The HomePod is a repeat of that formula. Build a solid foundation, pay more for a higher quality, better designed product. And it’ll improve over a couple of years to become the leader in that category. Taking 10% of a brand new product category out of the gate is no small accomplishment. The satisfaction rate with HomePod is very good. That’s what’s important. Happy customers who are buying a 2nd and 3rd HomePod because they love their first one will translate into word of mouth new customer sales. And eventually, everyone has one in their home and the critics curiously disappear.

This might be a repeat of history, but I don't believe so.

Apple didn't have any strong competition. The iPod user experience was miles better than any other music player I tried during that time period. It was a pleasure to use, and I would disagree that it was expensive or lacking many features. While most other digital players counted the songs you could carry in the dozens, Apple gave you a thousand. Same with the iPhone. Same with the iPad. By the time Apple moved into the smart watch territory, however, their competitors had started to get their acts together. While the Apple Watch, IMHO, is the superior product, there were and are good non-Apple options. Today, Apple is entering a market where the competition has very nice products out.

By the way, thanks for giving me an excuse to post a Steve Jobs presentation video.

 

[pika2000]

If they reduced the price - they might get more sales... Just going to leave that on the table and let is stew.

That's a poor business strategy. I'd rather Apple put huge improvements on Siri than drop prices. If Apple just drop prices, you're still getting a poor performing product, and you still wasted a good amount of money (vs a standard non-smart speaker system).

 

[paul4339]

Obviously plenty of Apple enthusiasts exist who will disagree, but is this news really that surprising? It's an overpriced speaker and the brains behind it (Siri) aren't that great. I've posted it before and I'll post it again: Apple missed the mark with this thing. There should have been less emphasis on sound quality and more emphasis on it being a home assistant.

But what happens if Apple knows they have an inferior home assistant service (Siri)? Do they wait a few years before entering the market, or do they approach it from the sound quality angle?

I’m impressed with Google Home; IMO if Apple would have came out with a HomePod Mini as a home assistant, it would have been horrible - poor sound AND poor assistant.

Coming out with a quality sound device first, will buy Apple more time to improve Siri to a more acceptable level, before releasing a HomePod Mini as a personal assistant.

 

[Geoff13]

I would love to have bought a HomePod but it is not available where I live nor is there any indication as to when it might be available. I also recently bought an new AppleTV expecting to be able to use Siri as advertised only to find that Siri only works on AppleTV in certain countries and in certain languages in certain countries. My mother tongue is English as an ex-pat Canadian so I would prefer to use English. Unfortunately I live in a country which Apple deems that English is not a language of use despite my iPhone working fine with Siri in English and although it offers Siri at least in neighbouring countries in French or German it doesn't offer it in any language in my country where both French and German are national languages. Apple is becoming more and more an American centric company that is forgetting the rest of the world. That really limits their market and despite the underwhelming offerings of the HomePod, which now makes me question buying one, I'm sure that this is also a major factor in its poor sales.

 

[paul4339]

That's a poor business strategy. I'd rather Apple put huge improvements on Siri than drop prices. If Apple just drop prices, you're still getting a poor performing product, and you still wasted a good amount of money (vs a standard non-smart speaker system).

I couldn’t agree more. If you have a crappy product don’t lower the price just to sell more of it. Make your product better.

China Times article is doesn’t jive with Apple’s philosophy. They are injecting what they think Apple should do to increase sales (lowering prices) rather than putting more effort into making Siri better.

 

[0924487]

It’s siri’s deficiency that killed the product.

 

[bmot]

Ultimately, I ended up returning HomePod and getting three Sonos One speakers with Alexa. Now I have one on every level of the house with easy linking and the freedom to use whatever sources I choose for music and podcasts, and freedom to customize how things sound. I think Apple definitely missed the mark with this product.

Sounds more like Apple missed the mark with several of their products.

 

[The Game 161]

Sounds more like Apple missed the mark with several of their products.

such as which? homepod is the only product which hasn't sold amazing and given the limitations at the moment it's hardly a surprise.

 

[bmot]

such as which? homepod is the only product which hasn't sold amazing and given the limitations at the moment it's hardly a surprise.

As mentioned by iPhone89:
- Siri is stupid
- HomeKit is a nightmare
- lack of speaker linking ability
- lack of third party app support - lower quality audio than spotify

 

[Bacillus]

That's a poor business strategy. I'd rather Apple put huge improvements on Siri than drop prices. If Apple just drop prices, you're still getting a poor performing product, and you still wasted a good amount of money (vs a standard non-smart speaker system).

Yet the situation is hyperbole prices for also-ran products

 

[pika2000]

Which is far different from charging hyperbole prices for also-ran products

Hyperbole price? There are regular non smart speakers that are more expensive than the HomePod, and their sq is so so.
There’s a constant impressions from reviewers around, that the sound quality of the HomePod, especially for a 360 degree speaker, is excellent.

This is the same thing as the AirPods. People are complaining about the price just because it’s Apple, ignoring that the competitors are at similar price or more and not as great.

Obviously if you’re only looking at $50 speakers, you’re not the target customer.

 

[Lowhangers]

As mentioned by iPhone89:
- Siri is stupid
- HomeKit is a nightmare
- lack of speaker linking ability
- lack of third party app support - lower quality audio than spotify

I have 4 home pods:

1. Siri is not stupid, he does everything I did with Alexa on my Echos except audiobooks, and that's not surprising since Amazon owns Audible and integrated Audible with Alexa. Instead, I just use AirPlay to play my audiobooks and they sound fantastic on the HomePod. Much better than the Echos.

I got rid of all of my Echos as I don't trust Amazon to protect my privacy.

2. HomeKit has been fantastic for me. I just got my first smart bulbs, and integrating them took seconds. They are working flawlessly for me and can be controlled via Siri or the bulbs iOS app.

3. Linking additional speakers doesn't matter to me. Linking my HomePods will happen with AirPlay 2 which is in beta right now.

4. Third party app support might come but in the meantime we have AirPlay for all that stuff. I have Apple Music so I have no interest in Spotify anyway.

 

[dwaltwhit]

I’m not sure people are waiting for an HomePod mini. I think people are waiting for something that really works for a decent price. The HomePod and the HomePod mini have three big limitations: Siri, closed system and limited functionality. If it was really that good, it would sell even with the extra Apple tax.

If it was perfect out the gate, they would be selling like hotcakes. Closed system is not a deterrent for many; I don't need any third party apps on a homepod. If it is the same siri as on my phone, then it is more than sufficient for my needs.

It may not be "good enough" for you and that's fine. The only reason I didn't buy is I don't need a $400 speaker.
[doublepost=1523621641][/doublepost]

Hyperbole price? There are regular non smart speakers that are more expensive than the HomePod, and their sq is so so.
There’s a constant impressions from reviewers around, that the sound quality of the HomePod, especially for a 360 degree speaker, is excellent.

This is the same thing as the AirPods. People are complaining about the price just because it’s Apple, ignoring that the competitors are at similar price or more and not as great.

Obviously if you’re only looking at $50 speakers, you’re not the target customer.

it is a hard pill to swallow for some that they are not the target customer

 

[sblemmy]

I am curious, what about the Play 1’s do you think is better? For me this is just curiosity because I won’t buy into a closed system like the HomePod.

My daughter is 3, and she doesn't enunciate clearly enough to active Siri (she sounds more like "Hey Sheeree"). The speaker is also up on a table that she cannot access easily. Since the Play:1 has physical buttons, she was able to reach her hand up and turn it on. She can't do that with the HomePod.

When you connect your Apple Music subscription to the Play:1, you can access content on the app regardless of who's device it's installed on. So, when we had the Play:1, my wife could browse for content, make playlists, and play music with my subscription. This isn't possible, as far as we know, with the Music app on her phone.

 

[Osamede]

Device is too locked down in terms of inputs. Make it follow the mainstream wifi and bluetooth input protocols and it would be the market bestseller by far. Not that complicated....

 

[Jay42]

Do some people truly believe that $350/$700 pair of speakers, can't run circles, and have a clear night and day advantage over a single/duo homepod? This truly saddens me that some believe Apple's hype to the point that they dismiss the majority of superior products for something subpar.

I was skeptical but they have received very good reviews from respected people in the audio field. Do you have a better performing alternative in mind for $700 including amplification?
[doublepost=1523629072][/doublepost]

I think you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference in sound between four Sonos ones and two airpods for the same price. Of course it’s speculation because right now only one of those systems supports stereo and simultaneous output.

And, of course, true audiophiles would prefer systems that support analog.

But I agree, for a few people this makes sense. It just doesn’t make sense for true audiophiles, people on a budget, people not on a budget who really can’t hear any difference between AirPod and it’s higher end but much cheaper competitors, people who already have speakers, people who want speakers for tv, people who want surround sound, people who want multi-room audio, people who regularly use their iPhone for “hey Siri,” families with different musical tastes who don’t want their apple music suggestions and playlists all screwed up, families who want smart speakers and the ability to maintain separate iCloud accounts, people not in the Apple ecosystem, ...

I agree that Apple is entering into a crowded field and has tried to walk a fine line, but for someone looking to spend $500-$1,000 on a stereo for music, it is an intriguing option. $1,000 frankly doesn't get you very far in the audiophile world.

 

[MacLoveMacHate]

"Echoes". I see what you did there.

 

[deanthedev]

So you are saying that Apple Music played on the homepod sounds the same as the exact same song airplayed through X,Y,Z music service? Because everyone else says otherwise based on forums, reviews, etc. So Apple is adding extra processing and algorithms to its songs. Therefore, what conclusion can we come to? Either it will be better or worse than the original recording. And who would know BEST what the original recording SHOULD sound like, others than the original artist and mixer themselves? No wonder so many people returned the homepod because of its artificial sound.

Anyone who claims that the ipad can be used for anything besides the basics in audio production, automatically gets disqualified in my book, no offense. A much cheaper device can run protools, reason, etc way better than anything the gimped ipad apps can provide. Why limit yourself to the most basic apps, when you can run a full studio suite from a laptop for the same or cheaper price?

You claimed the homepod is the best speaker you can buy for its size? So many people disagree with you, as most people don't live in a small box, nor like artificial processed mono sound. For the same or cheaper price, you can get much louder, better quality speakers than the homepod. There is a plethora of average to good speakers that will run circles around the homepod. If you are a sound engineer, with even the least amount of experience, you would know this for a fact. Apple's hype and marketing can only go but so far to those who are ignorant of the choices outside of the walled "garden".

I disagree, I have seen more reviews saying the Max is a better buy than the homepod. Not only with sound quality, but as far as AI and home automation. Well you get the same abilities and automation experience whether you buy the mini or the home. The max just adds SQ on top, so no limiting features because of the tier product you buy .

More logical fallacies. Is that all you've got?

You are so far off on so many things I don't even know which of your points to start with. So we can do this one at a time:

"As in no EQ, and no ability to shape the sound to their liking?" The entire purpose of EQ is not to adjust sound to your liking as you claimed: EQ during playback of music (as opposed to EQ when recording/mixing, which has an entirely different purpose) is so you can compensate for the acoustics of your environment. It's to make up for any interactions between your speakers and your room, not so you can make your music go boom-boom-sss-sss.

or this one...

"Because Apple's way is not how the artist intended for the recording to sound." So which is it? First you go off about "how the artist intended" then you complain about not being able to adjust sound "to their liking". Gee, not much of a contradiction there.

Shall we go on?

 

[Regime2008]

I was skeptical but they have received very good reviews from respected people in the audio field. Do you have a better performing alternative in mind for $700 including amplification?
[doublepost=1523629072][/doublepost]

I agree that Apple is entering into a crowded field and has tried to walk a fine line, but for someone looking to spend $500-$1,000 on a stereo for music, it is an intriguing option. $1,000 frankly doesn't get you very far in the audiophile world.

ELAC Uni-fi UB5 murder the homepod in quality, dynamics, range, and especially volume. Same with pretty much any other bookshelf speakers that are priced the same or even cheaper, including $129 Pioneer SP-BS22-LR. You can choose whatever amplification you'd like for your preference.

This guy did a pretty nice review with PLENTY of data and analysis. If you want to just see the comparisons, skip to the timestamps provided in his description to hear for yourself.

 

[Osamede]

More logical fallacies. Is that all you've got?

You are so far off on so many things I don't even know which of your points to start with. So we can do this one at a time:

"As in no EQ, and no ability to shape the sound to their liking?" The entire purpose of EQ is not to adjust sound to your liking as you claimed: EQ during playback of music (as opposed to EQ when recording/mixing, which has an entirely different purpose) is so you can compensate for the acoustics of your environment. It's to make up for any interactions between your speakers and your room, not so you can make your music go boom-boom-sss-sss.
?

Just to be clear. "EQ" and room correction are not one and the same.

Changing the mix of frequencies (EQ) is but just one of many possible tactics and tools that can be used, alone or in combination, to correct for the effects of in-room conditions.

And messing with EQ has long been used by music listeners to change the output to their taste, eg to get more "boom" etc, even if they music wasnt made that way by the producer.

Lots of things being mixed up here. And they should not be....

 

[Regime2008]

More logical fallacies. Is that all you've got?

You are so far off on so many things I don't even know which of your points to start with. So we can do this one at a time:

"As in no EQ, and no ability to shape the sound to their liking?" The entire purpose of EQ is not to adjust sound to your liking as you claimed: EQ during playback of music (as opposed to EQ when recording/mixing, which has an entirely different purpose) is so you can compensate for the acoustics of your environment. It's to make up for any interactions between your speakers and your room, not so you can make your music go boom-boom-sss-sss.

or this one...

"Because Apple's way is not how the artist intended for the recording to sound." So which is it? First you go off about "how the artist intended" then you complain about not being able to adjust sound "to their liking". Gee, not much of a contradiction there.

Shall we go on?

Dean, you literally switch the goal-posts in every reply. I keep on mentioning, over and over, that Apple changes the way music sounds. You turn the volume up, and the bass goes way down, and the vocals start to drown out the rest of the song. This is not normal on other music setups. The user has no control over how music is played. How hard is it to understand this concept? For this exact reason, I keep asking you how can someone resolve this? Do they have to move the homepod to another location? Can they adjust settings at all? Shall I point out how many threads there are with users asking how to control the EQ? https://forums.macrumors.com/search/5570461/?q=homepod+eq&o=date or better yet, what about this thread?

If Apple is altering how songs sound on the homepod, then it means it's not how the artists intended it to sound. AKA the sound is altered, changed, etc... Therefore if a user wanted to FIX this, and sound like the original recording, how would they go about doing this? How is this even a contradiction? Do you understand the question any better now? Or will you run around in circles with a response, yet again?

 

[9081094]

Wow. Not just a ripoff. But a total ripoff. Really.

It's clear you know nothing about HomePod's underlying technology.

You mean the beamforming? Hear the sound of those two next to each other and you can beam form all you want... the Harman Kardon Aura Plus sounds better, it's cheaper, has optical in, is able to produce stereo sound when paired and is more open (spotify, alexa) than the HomePod and doesn't leave white circles on your furniture.

And as shown in the pictures... you know where Apple's got their design from
[doublepost=1523633946][/doublepost]

It’s siri’s deficiency that killed the product.

And the lack of ports (optical line in), missing pairing for stereo, lack of openness.

 

[JRoDDz]

For $349 they should throw in a year of Apple Music for FREE.

 

[citysnaps]

You mean the beamforming? Hear the sound of those two next to each other and you can beam form all you want... the Harman Kardon Aura Plus sounds better, it's cheaper, has optical in, is able to produce stereo sound when paired and is more open (spotify, alexa) than the HomePod and doesn't leave white circles on your furniture.

And as shown in the pictures... you know where Apple's got their design from

Sounds like you've owned both HomePod and the HK for awhile to offer that assessment. Thanks! How long have you been using them? And if you have a moment, can you provide more details to support the above? How does the HK do with respect to automatic room acoustic equalization?

Also, when you give the HK voice commands to play your music, how well does that work while playing loud music?

HomePod looks nothing like the HK. Nice try.