So this seems sort of odd to me. Amazon is allowing other manufacturers to use Alexa in their devices AND Amazon is helping them sell them through Amazon.com in direct competition with Amazon-branded products? If Siri was included in some Chinese speaker/music product, what do you think the chance is that device would sit next to the Apple HomePod in the Apple Store? (hint...none).
Not every company functions like Apple. Some companies prefer to go for market share/exposure (a long play) instead of squeezing every possible nickel out of buyers of their creations (a short play).
Once upon a time there was a company that first brought a mouse-driven windowed OS to the masses. That OS is now known as macOS. Years after the early incarnation of macOS was released a rival competitor finally released their crack at a mouse-driven windowed OS, then and now known as Windows. The former kept their OS to themselves, allowing it to run only on their own hardware priced at a premium. The latter made it as easy as possible for every other computer maker to roll out their hardware with Windows. Time passes. Even today, what percentage of the world's computers run Windows vs. what percentage runs macOS? And as such, all kinds of software is still exclusive to Windows because it is the most popular computer OS in the world.
Note the question just posted is not about which OS is better or even Apple as an entity vs. Microsoft as an entity. Instead, it's just an early example of how one company goes for maximum profits from each customer (or quality of each sale) while another goes for maximum share (or quantity of sales).
Example #2: A touch-based OS. Once again Apple most effectively packaged up a touch OS and brought it to the masses. And once again, they kept it exclusively for their own hardware, priced at a premium. Shortly thereafter Android is released. And once again, iOS plays for quality of each sale while Android goes for market share. For a while iOS was both "most profitable" and share dominant. But now it's just the former... and it continues to lose share to Android. Android expands to more and more things while iOS is locked to only Apple things.
Again, that's no argument that Android is better than iOS or Google/Samsung/Et all are better than Apple... just pointing out another very tangible example of one company going for maximum profit-per-sale while another aims for volume sales to dominate a market(s). Android is finding its way into all kinds of off-shoot products (like even TV interfaces) while iOS remains locked to a small portfolio of products made only by Apple. In the long play, all tech suitable for a mobile OS at it's core probably runs on Android. Eventually, iOS share vs. Android probably looks like macOS share vs. Windows.
Example #3: Alexa vs. Siri. Once again, Siri preceded Alexa by many years. And once again, Siri has pretty much been locked to only Apple offerings. Alexa is late to the game but- like Windows and Android- Alexa seems to be readily available to be installed in just about anything & everything looking for a Siri-like voice assistant. My household is pretty heavily an Apple-dominated household. But Alexa snuck in by being chosen by DISH network as THE voice assistant for DISH hardware. I didn't even buy anything. There was a DISH software update and Alexa arrived.
Furthermore, a desirable STB app called DISH Anywhere is still not available for
TV at $1XX but is available for Amazon Fire TV stick at $3X, so now there's a Fire TV stick plugged into a spare television, mostly to run that single app (basically bringing the benefits of the main TV's DISH DVR and programming to the other TV without the lease of a separate box). And that has Alexa being THE voice assistant for that TV too.
Apple basically does the same thing over and over. They seem to invent or bring something into the mainstream in a well-conceived way but then hold it tightly, locked down to only Apple hardware. At first they own or dominate the market for that new innovation, and own a good head start until someone else rolls out a viable clone or clone+. Then, the latter goes for market share and basically eats away at Apple's dominance. Apple still gets to claim "most profitable" (which, curiously enough, seems to bring great joy to some of us consumers who's pockets are being emptied to give them all that profitability) but ultimately loses the breadth & depth race. In the long play, like Windows & Android, what seems most likely: Alexa or Siri ruling voice-controlled interfaces in all the places where such interfaces make sense? More simply, if you are betting on a name of a voice assistant most likely to become THE ubiquitous voice assistant, name that assistant.
Apple people may recoil with shock and scream Siri, but let history be your guide. The only way Siri becomes ubiquitous is likely to be the faux way... a household and members of that household only use Apple products so it
seems like Siri is the dominant voice assistant in their bubble. But step outside that bubble and try to find Siri in anything else. And don't be surprised if Alexa sneaks in as the voice of other tech in homes- just like it did in my home. Same basic sequence of events over and over again.
So you are right: I doubt there would ever be a Siri-driven speaker made by someone like Anker for sale in an Apple store. But it's no surprise Amazon would have 10 Alexa-driven clones for sale in the Amazon store. Amazon is playing for voice assistant dominance/ubiquity. Apple is playing for maximum profit-per-product sold in the now. Buy this voice controlled speaker for $39 or buy HomePod for nearly 10X higher price? Apple fans will readily pay anything and rationalize anything with an Apple logo on it. But step outside of our bubble: will the Windows and/or Android-using masses justify a 10X higher price so easily?
