That's always a lame argument that Apple fans use, in this case a strawman. Nothing in this world is for 'free'. You either accept the price you pay for something that is free or you don't.
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 Holds Estimated 70% Share of Growing $200+ Smart Speaker Market
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You funboys never owned anything other than Apple speakers, self proving the intelligence of funboys
[doublepost=1537509332][/doublepost]
Coz only funboys are stupid enough to pay that much
Pretty much.
Android doesn’t really sell t that price.
Tbc android devices doesn’t really sell very well at any price over 700 dollars or mid range tier.
Consumers would rather buy an iPhone at that price.
First of all, happy first post.
Second, did you mean “fanboys”?...if not, I’ll take funboys as a compliment. Other than that, you should really join us in our weekly “Apple fanboy spelling review class”.
On a serious note, I don’t consider myself a fanboy but an avid Apple user and music enthusiast like others in these forums. And what I said about the HomePod I still stand by. You should really take one of these home to try out instead of labelling us as fanboys.
Last edited:
It does.
But to be fair, it doesn’t sell very well.
Which was my original point.
Android handset can’t sell at those prices.
I still don't understand how neither the HomePod nor Sonos One have line in.
I want to put one of these in my computer room and they literally won't work with the computer. Yes, I know a computer can use Airplay and Bluetooth, but that induces lag so it's unacceptable for audio that has to sync with video or games.
My kingdom for S/PDIF.
I want to put one of these in my computer room and they literally won't work with the computer. Yes, I know a computer can use Airplay and Bluetooth, but that induces lag so it's unacceptable for audio that has to sync with video or games.
My kingdom for S/PDIF.
The long term effect of having a high price for your phones like Apple will have now is longer lifetime of the devices and more likely to go over to Android.
First one will reduce sales growth, second will reduce customer base.
Depends on the nature of your customer base. Apple customers by and large have proven that (1) they want iPhones and (2) they are willing to pay any price for the best.
Since users are already showing signs of hanging on to their devices anyways, higher prices is absolutely the right way to go once your market share has been saturated (from Apple’s perspective). Next will be more hardware and additional services to get more money out of their users.
Apple’s not a very hard company to read.
This doesn’t make any sense. You risk having a surplus of inventory.
Personally I think Apple is testing to see its consumers’ willpower.
The increased margin will mitigate a shrinking customer base (which tbh is still very big and rich). Although stock valuation suggest a long-term growth of 9-10%, which is not possible with the products they are putting out nowadays.
The strategy is opposed to what Tim Cook is saying is to make Apple a high-end brand. They are on the way of becoming the Louis Vitton of phones basically.
I suspect Apple knows exactly how much it can get away with. Don’t be surprised to see iPhone prices continue to climb in the future.
You mean high prices like competing Android have too, but Apple's hold value better and last longer?
We've been over this, Apple customers don't move to Android (just look at unit sales and a growing active base of iPhones). Android customers move to Android.
Android haven’t hicked prices as dramatically as Apple.
The note 9 starts at £899 in the Uk and you get 128GB of storage plus micro SD expansion. For most people that’s more than enough but at the most extreme end you pay £1099 for 512GB and 8GB of ram which is still less than I paid for my 256GB iPhone X last year.
The max starts at £1099 in the UK for only 64GB of ram and tops out and £1445.
Last year the note 8 cost £879 and you only got 64GB of storage. So the price only went up by £21 and you get more memory.
Even the note 7 was £800. So over 2 years it’s a £100 increase.
In contrast before Apple’s crazy pricing the plus model in 2016 started at around £750. Now to get a plus sized iPhone you have to spend at least £1099. So that’s a £350 increase over 2 years.
Lasts longer is subjective. Most consumers don’t know or care what version of the OS their devices are running. Technically minded/enthusiasts port the latest versions of android onto their phones long after it’s official support has ended.
That is why I said “risk”
[doublepost=1537719904][/doublepost]
I am definitely not surprised by the price increases. I know many people such as yourself who joke about the high prices but still keep buying.
You are quite correct.
With android oems hiking their prices to position their products closer to the iPhone, it is alienating a lot of android users, the general consensus seems that if both android and iPhones were similarly priced the android consumer would choose the iPhone.
It’s quite ironic.
Last edited:
Apple iPhones have more expensive components compared to Samsung, 3D facial Id and nvme storage name a few.
Note 9 on the other hand is an overpriced (market dictated overpriced; lack of demand, surplus of inventory) s9+.
Get pissed off at Samsung, not apple.
Look up what an iPhone X is worth now versus say a Note 8. You’re also splitting hairs. You can’t cherrypick certain features and act like the Note is a better value at a similar $1000. Why do I care about 8GB of ram? Oh that’s right, almost no one does except spec nerds. Most people just want their phone to work, look good, and run fast...even if it has 1GB of RAM. No one cares. Apple understands this. 4GB is more than enough with iOS 12. Android needs 8GB of ram bc their OS sucks.
I can do the same. The iPhone runs iOS, better security, faster storage, better support, has more secure/advanced facial unlock, no chin, far better silicon, faster, looks better, etc.
Your beating a dead horse, poster wants a note 9 but buys an iPhone max instead, then proceeds to complain about it
They should get what makes them happy.
And you’re so wrong. EVERYONE knows when they have an iPhone. If anything, Android owners don’t know the OS. People buy iPhones because of the ecosystem and ease of use. Hand them an Android phone and they’ll be confused.
What people don’t know or care about are specs like 8GB of Ram, 1440p, or expandable storage. MOST people just want to start using the phone.
Both price and the quality and functions of the competition is part of that equation. While prices are going up drastically compared to competition, the advantage in functions is shrinking.
These are two different segments, though.
The Apple Watch entered a smartwatch market that was moribund, filled with mediocre devices, none of them really standing out. And the Apple Watch didn't do much better initially, though it had a solid foundation to build upon.
Compare this to the smart speaker market where two companies--Amazon and Google--already thoroughly dominate the space. Apple is fighting against two entrenched and successful companies here. Neither is going to give ground willingly to a competitor.
Apple turned the Watch around three ways and some of this is relevant to the HomePod:
- It continued to offer hardware refinements, allowing the Watch to better do the things the software demanded of it
- The OS and UI design also improved each year. Remember when the side button brought up the list of contacts? Apple wasn't afraid to ditch unused or unwieldy parts of the software.
- And here's a big one: Starting with the second generation, Apple has offered two lines, the top end with all the latest tech, and an entry-level model (initially the Series 1) that cut a few features, but had a significantly lower price. Before the Series 4 debuted, it's been said that 90% of all current watches being sold were the Series 1 rather than the Series 3. People want the watch, but they're willing to settle for less for a better price.
(The two-tier approach works out even better for consumers now, as the Series 3 has replaced the the Series 1 and is a substantial improvement over the latter, effectively raising the quality of the entry level. It wouldn't surprise me if sales of the Apple Watch line continue to improve.)
I suspect the popular wisdom about the HomePod is correct in that Apple will release a lower-priced model, and improvements to its software--and especially to Siri--will help boost its share of the market. But I don't know if it will ever compete with the size of the Amazon Echo and Google Home share--and Apple may be fine with that if HomePod sells enough to meet their expectations.
(I am personally indifferent to the HomePod. We have a great stereo setup here and the HomePod is $450, kind of a non-starter for me. I'm fine with music through the stereo and yelling at Siri on my watch.)
