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.
HomePod Costs an Estimated $216 to Make
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only person making that implication is you. Nothing I've said in this thread implies anything of the sort. Like I said, you're in your own head.
They also specifically went out to design a smart speaker, so yes they spent a lot of money designing the homepod and that's my point
Seems like they are doing this lately. I remember when the airpods came out, how they are against a wall when it comes to margins. They sold them at $160 to basically beat any other product at that price/feature ratio. Seems like they wanted the good speaker reviews at a lower price than they could’ve charged.
Yup. Tried leaving my iPhone for a Pixel 2 XL this past fall. Missed how well my AirPods worked and all the little things that I like about Apple Watch, so I sent it back.
I think this is the real reason. Apple could have priced the speakers higher and, although they might not have sold as many, they would have made more money on each, for an overall gain in profit. This is another way to make leaving the Apple ecosystem expensive and troublesome. It’s not a bad speaker, it’s a dedicated to Apple streaming speaker. They know most people who buy this will either buy an AM or ITunes Match subscription or they already have one, and long term that’s where Apple will make money. Not on the device but with the service.
I understand your comments. I remember a time when owning Apple products made you an outsider. Had to constantly explain to my PC friends, family and co-workers, that yes Mac software is limited, but you can do anything on a Mac you can do on a PC. Took people a long time to get past that preconception. I agree it was like an eclectic boutique thing for many, and you had to pay more to play.
Sure they continue this "Luxury Goods" business model, and are late to the party, but I feel they are beginning to fall short with the "pay more for an improved product" strategy. For a time it was innovation that drove sales. Remember the first iPhone? First iPad? strokes of genius. I was happy to pay more. The first aluminum MacBooks? Heck I even had two of the original iMac G3's, one in blue, the other in purple. There were faster computers out there that did more for less, but the Apple design blew the competition away. It was worth the extra cost to me.
No denying their cash flow is impressive, but I wonder how long it will continue. Especially since some of their latest offerings have been a bit underwhelming to many.
With their latest late to the party smart speaker offering, the HomePod does not seem to separate itself from the pack with improvements vs the cost you pay for a "Luxury product" as much as I had hoped. Just my opinion.
The only thing I can find so far is that I need to ask for the Winnipeg jets scores vs just the jets, and it does have issues with city preferences... ie if a city exists in the US and in Canada and I ask it for the temperature it will default to the US city. That’s the only thing I have come across so far!
I'd imagine it's because the HomePod requires an iOS or Mac device, and is really only useful with an Apple Music subscription. Those higher margin devices and services subsidize the HomePod. Same reason why Amazon sells their Kindle/Fire devices for almost $0 margin - they are subsidized by what the customers buy on the device from Amazon.
True. In this case, though, you're the one doing a little bit of the ignoring. "manufacturing, testing, and packaging cost an additional $17.50."
So we're all agreed. Being safely and comfortably "locked in" to Apple's ecosystem is neutral to positive proposition.
Anyone who sees it as a negative is just in their own head.
The HP is a unique idea, now that it is out and real audio engineers get their hand on it, it will be fun to see if Apple kills the speaker industry or if the Pro Audio folks learned anything from the phone industry and start paying attention.
Unfortunately for me, my tired old ears seem to prefer the natural quality from less digital technology rather than more. I've used various digital processors (i.e. dolby, ARC, KRK, etc.) but at the end of the day a little acoustical treatment, good traditional speakers and a good analog amplifier seem to rule the nest.
Unfortunately for me, my tired old ears seem to prefer the natural quality from less digital technology rather than more. I've used various digital processors (i.e. dolby, ARC, KRK, etc.) but at the end of the day a little acoustical treatment, good traditional speakers and a good analog amplifier seem to rule the nest.
Sure? I guess. I have no idea what you mean but I'm just going to agree and keep it movin'.
I was supposedly negative. He was in his head. Can't really combine that.
I think the size of these "margins" more represents the amount of engineering and development hours that went into the product.
Not having a screen means there's no need for graphic designers to spend time on it. There's probably no more than half as much code written for this, if not less, than for iOS products, and most of it could just be borrowed from existing products.
Not having a screen means there's no need for graphic designers to spend time on it. There's probably no more than half as much code written for this, if not less, than for iOS products, and most of it could just be borrowed from existing products.
Hmmmm... prefers tube amplifiers to discrete amps. Truly a heretic: Burn him.
Not sure my old ears could still hear the difference between an above average discrete amp and a comparable tube amp. Not saying that there isn’t a difference just that my hearing isn’t what it use to be.
"Many" found the Apple Watch to be underwhelming, yet it dominates the smart watch category.
If you recall, "many" thought the iPad was "just a big iPhone, without the phone". I read that phrase over and over. Even the iPhone was derided by "many" as a "smart phone that wasn't very smart". No apps. No cut and paste, even!
"Many" turned out to be wrong.
We remember Apple's successes as though they were obvious successes, but hindsight is 20/20. And recall, if you remember the iPhone and the iPad, you're ten years older now than you were then, with the different priorities that come with more maturity. A lot of what you find underwhelming is not going to be relevant to Apple's target audience. Possibly you've aged out of that target. I know I didn't really "get" Apple's Beats. I wonder how useful AR and VR will be with my aging eyes. I was resistant to strapping a watch to my wrist again after so many years of not wearing one.
How long will Apple's success continue? Probably not forever. Maybe only a few more decades. Possibly a century. But yeah, eventually they will go down. Like Coca-Cola. Like AT&T.
And remember how AirPods were so aggressively panned here on MacRumors a year or so ago. Yet they'll likely bring in $4 billion in 2018. For wireless earbuds.
And of course there was the iPod, another too little too late MP3 player released in 2001.
Agreed. However with Siri how can you state "a push into the living room?" Do you mean a push into the Walled Garden Living Room? As in pushing out competition currently in place?
I see very little demand outside Applefiles inside the Walled Garden due to Siri's Apple only Algorithms.
Should have spent $5 more for the material used on the bottom.
Also the assumption that R&D costs have to be recovered directly on a newly released product is stupid and naive in relation to Apple. This company is far beyond needing to recover R&D on every new product they release. The price of the product does not need to absorb the R&D and marketing for a company that has 300 billion sitting in the bank, and arguably the only reason why Apple came out with their HomePod is to increase subscriptions into their Apple Music platform. This product will continue to make money years after the initial purchase. The success of the company in the past along with the strategy of profit from services for the future should mean that this company doesn't need to make up their R&D expense on this product in the first year of its release.
Also marketing is never applied to a products cost, it is part of the operating expense of the company. Just because a product is market heavily does not mean its price has to reflect its marketing expenses. Apple doesn't even need to market this very hard, the fact they choose to blow millions on marketing is compelled in the control of executives, not the engineers that make the product.
Apple continues to want excessive profit margins on their products and it has nothing to do with the expensive of making or marketing them. Apple is always held on such a high pedestal when their products are compared to competition, yet fanbois rush to claim Apple is just like every other company trying to turn a quick buck when their pricing strategy is put into question.
Also the assumption that R&D costs have to be recovered directly on a newly released product is stupid and naive in relation to Apple. This company is far beyond needing to recover R&D on every new product they release. The price of the product does not need to absorb the R&D and marketing for a company that has 300 billion sitting in the bank, and arguably the only reason why Apple came out with their HomePod is to increase subscriptions into their Apple Music platform. This product will continue to make money years after the initial purchase. The success of the company in the past along with the strategy of profit from services for the future should mean that this company doesn't need to make up their R&D expense on this product in the first year of its release.
Also marketing is never applied to a products cost, it is part of the operating expense of the company. Just because a product is market heavily does not mean its price has to reflect its marketing expenses. Apple doesn't even need to market this very hard, the fact they choose to blow millions on marketing is compelled in the control of executives, not the engineers that make the product.
Apple continues to want excessive profit margins on their products and it has nothing to do with the expensive of making or marketing them. Apple is always held on such a high pedestal when their products are compared to competition, yet fanbois rush to claim Apple is just like every other company trying to turn a quick buck when their pricing strategy is put into question.
Last edited:
If the HomePod was $400, I still would have bought it. It works great for me. The Hey Siri range is amazing as is the sound. Time to sell my Sonos 5.