HomePod Holds Estimated 70% Share of Growing $200+ Smart Speaker Market

[Baymowe335]

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.

I’d argue the quality of Samsung as an example is actually decreasing. They have good screens, but their software overlay is still a mess, poor support, poorer security, half baked facial recognition, and inferior silicon to Apple’s A12.

Apple’s lead in silicon is widening and it can’t be understated for the next phase in AR computing. Apple's phones still look more premium and iOS is still a lot better.

Samsung’s best costing nearly the same as Apple’s best will not entice Apple ecosystem users to switch. Why would they switch to a phone with no ecosystem for basically the same price?

You think a lot of people are going to switch away from the comfort and security of Apple for 8GB of ram, Android spyware, and an expandable storage card?

 

[fairuz]

I don't see why this statistic matters. Does winning the $200+ category mean something? If it's just about profits, there's the profitshare stat.

 

[Baymowe335]

I don't see why this statistic matters. Does winning the $200+ category mean something? If it's just about profits, there's the profitshare stat.

Yes, because it’s all about the money.

At least, that’s what business is about.

 

[Shanghaichica]

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.

Many iPhone users don’t know what version of the OS they are using, they just want to use the phone. They only know it’s time to update when they keep getting promoted to update their phones.

People do care about expandable storage because most would rather not pay for extra internal storage which is why the base model of phones is usually one of the most popular.

Android phones aren’t that difficult to use. I didn’t say the average consumer would care about 8GB of Ram nor did I say an iPhone needs 8GB. I was talking about the difference in price between the max and the note 9 and. 8GB of ram is advantageous if you are running android with a heavy skin on it. So for me the note 9 offers more value for money even though I won’t buy the note 9.

I use an iPhone because of the ecosystem and experience and the overall package. However I can easily recognise if there are better phones out there or phones that are better value for money.
[doublepost=1537762590][/doublepost]

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.

I think the third point is the real key to the ultimate success of the Apple Watch. Apple offered a model at a price the market would bear (and that Apple itself could bear). The more affordable price, combined with the hardware and software refinements, made the Apple Watch a much more desirable product.

(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.)

These are all valid points however I think the smart speaker market is still in its infancy so Apple have a chance to grow here which I believe it will it will just take time. If you are in the Apple ecosystem then there are things the HomePod can do for you that you can’t do with an echo or google home. If you subscribe to Apple Music which is also fast growing then the other two speakers are useless.
[doublepost=1537764267][/doublepost]

I’d argue the quality of Samsung as an example is actually decreasing. They have good screens, but their software overlay is still a mess, poor support, poorer security, half baked facial recognition, and inferior silicon to Apple’s A12.

Apple’s lead in silicon is widening and it can’t be understated for the next phase in AR computing. Apple's phones still look more premium and iOS is still a lot better.

Samsung’s best costing nearly the same as Apple’s best will not entice Apple ecosystem users to switch. Why would they switch to a phone with no ecosystem for basically the same price?

You think a lot of people are going to switch away from the comfort and security of Apple for 8GB of ram, Android spyware, and an expandable storage card?

Inferior silicone doesn’t mean that the chip is a bad chip. It is still powerful enough to do all of the things that people want to do on their phones. The facial recognition is not as good as Face ID but it works well enough and there is always the fingerprint reader.

Most people buy their phones based on what it can do today and and most don’t know a lot about AR at the moment. Security and Spyware the average consumer knows nothing about.

It depends on how deep into the ecosystem a user is and also how willing they are to change. Without the Xr Apple would risk loosing a lot of consumers due to increased prices. However the Xr will keep a lot of people and maybe gain some switchers.

For me personally despite not being happy about the price of the max there is no point in switching. The note 9 is a great phone with superior hardware and features but that’s where it ends. There is no ecosystem of any value for me to switch to. Many of the Apple devices I own like the Apple Watch, iPad etc are better than their android counterparts and hell will freeze over before I use another windows computer. I’d lose the integration between all my Apple devices.

I have no issues using android because I’ve used it before and it’s easy to use. However the time it would take to switch all my stuff away from iOS including getting all my passwords out of keychain, trying to organise all my photos etc is not worth the few hundred pounds I’d be saving. Also here are little features like being able to use Face ID for my banking Apps which I can’t do on android. Then there is the fact of all hundreds of movies and TV shows I’ve purchased from iTunes which I can’t use on android.

So whilst I’m not happy with the new pricing structure and can readily admit that the note 9 is a better phone based on specs and hardware I’ve ordered the max which I get to pick up on Wednesday.

 

[fairuz]

Yes, because it’s all about the money.

At least, that’s what business is about.

Ok, but it's possible the other speakers are making more money.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Ok, but it's possible the other speakers are making more money.

I’m not sure that the echo dots and google home minis are really making a lot of money even though they are selling in volume. They are always discounted to £30 here and google often give them away for free or at a very reduced price if you buy another google device. I got my google home mini and chromecast for £40. I don’t even use the chromecast but £40 is cheaper than the normal sale price of the google home mini.

I have 2 HomePods, 2 echos and a google home mini. The echos and google home were all bought at discounted prices. My HomePods I paid full retail price for.

 

[ipponrg]

I’m not sure that the echo dots and google home minis are really making a lot of money even though they are selling in volume. They are always discounted to £30 here and google often give them away for free or at a very reduced price if you buy another google device. I got my google home mini and chromecast for £40. I don’t even use the chromecast but £40 is cheaper than the normal sale price of the google home mini.

I have 2 HomePods, 2 echos and a google home mini. The echos and google home were all bought at discounted prices. My HomePods I paid full retail price for.

The thing most here don’t realize is that data about the user is more important to some of these companies than unit sales. Knowing the user is how some of these services improve immensely by being personalized for you.

Having worked with Amazon and Google, they certainly do not care that much about profits on these devices.

 

[Shanghaichica]

The thing most here don’t realize is that data about the user is more important to some of these companies than unit sales. Knowing the user is how some of these services improve immensely by being personalized for you.

Having worked with Amazon and Google, they certainly do not care that much about profits on these devices.

Which is why they are giving them away are selling them for pennies. The cheaper they are the more people will bite and the more data they get.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

I think the third point is the real key to the ultimate success of the Apple Watch. Apple offered a model at a price the market would bear (and that Apple itself could bear). The more affordable price, combined with the hardware and software refinements, made the Apple Watch a much more desirable product.

(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.)

As the saying goes - if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will fail every time.

Why is Apple being judged by the lack of cheap smart speakers in the market when its business model is clearly very different from that of google or amazon?

As it is, amazon is flooding the market with all manner of cheap Alexa hardware for the simple reason that they have no smartphone presence. Amazon does not want to be just another app on your iPhone or android device. They desire a more direct relationship with the customer and this is really the only thing they can do. Google is retaliating in kind because they don’t want amazon monopolising all that user data. It’s a free for all race to the bottom that Apple has no vested interest in, for the simple reason that they don’t want my data, and don’t / can’t profit off it.

Apple already has the iPhone and Apple Watch, two devices which already let you do a lot of things that the Amazon echo does. They don’t need to flood your house with Siri speakers. That’s why the HomePod is designed with an entirely different purpose in mind, and why Siri isn’t the primary focus (and why it’s perfectly okay that Siri may not be as good as google assistant).

Not to mention the power of ecosystem lock-in. iPhone users with Apple Music already have a very compelling reason to favour the HomePod over other alternatives.

It's actually astounding to me that there's people in the Macrumors comments who think Apple's approach isn't the right one (for Apple) and that they're somehow going to "lose".

This is exactly the whole 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 maybe they would. And its obvious they'd follow Apple's strategy if that were the case because the user experience would be better and it would be secure.

Apple's not going to lose because they have leverage. An installed base of close to a billion iOS devices is leverage. Having aggregated the most affluent customers is leverage.

Apple will do just fine.

 

[OllyW]

Not to mention the power of ecosystem lock-in. iPhone users with Apple Music already have a very compelling reason to favour the HomePod over other alternatives.

I wish Apple made a simple plug-in adaptor for iPhone users with Apple Music who aren't interested in smart speakers, don't want to faff about with AirPlay and already have a decent sound system.

 

[FFR]

I wish Apple made a simple plug-in adaptor for iPhone users with Apple Music who aren't interested in smart speakers, don't want to faff about with AirPlay and already have a decent sound system.

I think that’s a great idea.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple is trying to sell what it believes to be a superior music listening experience, made possible by services such as Apple Music, Siri and airplay 2 integrating with their other hardware and software. And I believe Apple has a decent chance of seeing some level of success with the HomePod, given its deep integration with Apple Music.

At the end of the day, I just don’t buy into the argument that the HomePod competes with the amazon echo (and vice versa). The challenge the HomePod faces is whether people see a need for a high-end music speaker in the house (vs not having any at all), particularly one which works well with their other Apple products.

 

[Baymowe335]

Ok, but it's possible the other speakers are making more money.

Doubt it. They are probably sold at razor thin margins or even loss leaders to get you into their ecosystem (particularly the Echo). We are all guessing here, but the darn things are so cheap, I don't see any other way unless they are just awful quality.

 

[Coconut Bean]

I’d argue the quality of Samsung as an example is actually decreasing. They have good screens, but their software overlay is still a mess, poor support, poorer security, half baked facial recognition, and inferior silicon to Apple’s A12.

Apple’s lead in silicon is widening and it can’t be understated for the next phase in AR computing. Apple's phones still look more premium and iOS is still a lot better.

Samsung’s best costing nearly the same as Apple’s best will not entice Apple ecosystem users to switch. Why would they switch to a phone with no ecosystem for basically the same price?

You think a lot of people are going to switch away from the comfort and security of Apple for 8GB of ram, Android spyware, and an expandable storage card?

No, people will choose Full-HD screen, quick-charging, working voice assistant and a price tag of only $300 however. No doubt Apple still makes the most complete phones, but the marginal improvements you get in the market for the extra hundred bucks is not big at all.

Finally the ecosystem is something that is there to lock in not to attract as the price of buying in completely is something only a few can afford nowadays.

 

[Baymowe335]

No, people will choose Full-HD screen, quick-charging, working voice assistant and a price tag of only $300 however. No doubt Apple still makes the most complete phones, but the marginal improvements you get in the market for the extra hundred bucks is not big at all.

Finally the ecosystem is something that is there to lock in not to attract as the price of buying in completely is something only a few can afford nowadays.

Show me data that shows anyone "chooses" a singular Android phone over the iPhone. Android's market share is entirely priced based because people can't afford the iPhone. That's why in developed nations like the US, Japan, and and UK, iPhone have FAR more share than any single premium smartphone and way bigger than the Android stat of 90% share to 10% share. You can't compare every Android manufacturer to a single phone. Apple sells 220M iPhones/yr. Which Android phone sells anything near those numbers? Answer: None.

YOU make think the incremental improvement to iPhone isn't worth the premium, but the numbers don't tell that story. Apple crushes the competition in their space. We aren't talking about sub $300 phones either. Apple doesn't play in that space and that's most of the Android game.

 

[ipponrg]

Show me data that shows anyone "chooses" a singular Android phone over the iPhone

Few friends and coworkers here chose an Android phone (Pixel and S9 to be exact) over the iPhone. So I guess that satisfies the "anyone" part.

Anyhow while we're getting pedantic, Android is an OS, and the iPhone is the actual phone.

 

[Coconut Bean]

Show me data that shows anyone "chooses" a singular Android phone over the iPhone. Android's market share is entirely priced based because people can't afford the iPhone. That's why in developed nations like the US, Japan, and and UK, iPhone have FAR more share than any single premium smartphone and way bigger than the Android stat of 90% share to 10% share. You can't compare every Android manufacturer to a single phone. Apple sells 220M iPhones/yr. Which Android phone sells anything near those numbers? Answer: None.

YOU make think the incremental improvement to iPhone isn't worth the premium, but the numbers don't tell that story. Apple crushes the competition in their space. We aren't talking about sub $300 phones either. Apple doesn't play in that space and that's most of the Android game.

We are talking about different sides of the same coin. I am making the case that Apple is shifting towards high-end/luxury segment across all product lines and yes, a lot of people would like to have Apple, but they can't afford it.

Apple is becoming the Louis Vitton or Voss of phones and let's be real an article stating that Voss has 73% of the $9+ dollar mineral water market would just sound dumb.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Few friends and coworkers here chose an Android phone (Pixel and S9 to be exact) over the iPhone. So I guess that satisfies the "anyone" part.

Anyhow while we're getting pedantic, Android is an OS, and the iPhone is the actual phone.

I think they mean consumers in mass choosing a particular android model over the iPhone and there are no sales figures to suggest that any single model of phone sells more than the iPhone.

 

[Baymowe335]

We are talking about different sides of the same coin. I am making the case that Apple is shifting towards high-end/luxury segment across all product lines and yes, a lot of people would like to have Apple, but they can't afford it.

Apple is becoming the Louis Vitton or Voss of phones and let's be real an article stating that Voss has 73% of the $9+ dollar mineral water market would just sound dumb.

Apple is nothing close to Louis Vuitton because their product is still enormously useful in comparison. It replaces your phone, your video player, web browser, music player, DSLR, etc. We spend hours/day on them and they last 3 years, easily. Your per use cost is insanely low. We can be productive on them, play games, take great video/pictures, and connect with others.

The bag is purely a luxury and single use. And a lot more expensive.
[doublepost=1537824468][/doublepost]

Few friends and coworkers here chose an Android phone (Pixel and S9 to be exact) over the iPhone. So I guess that satisfies the "anyone" part.

Anyhow while we're getting pedantic, Android is an OS, and the iPhone is the actual phone.

I mean in any meaningful amounts. The are always anectodal pieces of data. There are people that chose the RAZR over either phone...who cares?

iOS and iPhones are intertwined.

Android is an OS used by everyone else. That's the problem. It's just like Windows...fragmented and poorly optimized because there are a million different hardware combinations and manufacturers who don't care about supporting their products or making the software work right on them.

 

[FFR]

We are talking about different sides of the same coin. I am making the case that Apple is shifting towards high-end/luxury segment across all product lines and yes, a lot of people would like to have Apple, but they can't afford it.

Apple is becoming the Louis Vitton or Voss of phones and let's be real an article stating that Voss has 73% of the $9+ dollar mineral water market would just sound dumb.

Not a apples to apples comparison.

Economically speaking it would be incorrect to compare Ferraris to Hondas because they both operate at different price ranges, and target different consumers who posses a different set of purchasing power.

It’s just Economics.
I have nothing against Ferrari’s or their owners.

 

[Coconut Bean]

Apple is nothing close to Louis Vuitton because their product is still enormously useful in comparison. It replaces your phone, your video player, web browser, music player, DSLR, etc. We spend hours/day on them and they last 3 years, easily. Your per use cost is insanely low. We can be productive on them, play games, take great video/pictures, and connect with others.

The bag is purely a luxury and single use. And a lot more expensive.
[doublepost=1537824468][/doublepost]
I mean in any meaningful amounts. The are always anectodal pieces of data. There are people that chose the RAZR over either phone...who cares?

iOS and iPhones are intertwined.

Android is an OS used by everyone else. That's the problem. It's just like Windows...fragmented and poorly optimized because there are a million different hardware combinations and manufacturers who don't care about supporting their products or making the software work right on them.

Comparing a midpriced bag to Louis Vuitton and a budget model to the iPhone is a valid comparison. Not comparing bags to phones. LOL.

As you say the more pricey is better in some areas but you get 99% of the utility from the cheaper alternative too. Thus in that sense the per use cost is still much lower for the budget version.

 

[Baymowe335]

Comparing a midpriced bag to Louis Vuitton and a budget model to the iPhone is a valid comparison. Not comparing bags to phones. LOL.

As you say the more pricey is better in some areas but you get 99% of the utility from the cheaper alternative too. Thus in that sense the per use cost is still much lower for the budget version.

The point I made was that since the per use/per day cost is so low, people aren't concerned about pricing on phones they want and will not move to a "budget" flagship which still costs $800-$1,000 anyway and runs Android.

Why would I pay similar prices to run Android if my whole setup is Apple?

This doesn't even factor in advantages of Apple over others.

 

[Coconut Bean]

The point I made was that since the per use/per day cost is so low, people aren't concerned about pricing on phones they want and will not move to a "budget" flagship which still costs $800-$1,000 anyway and runs Android.

Why would I pay similar prices to run Android if my whole setup is Apple?

This doesn't even factor in advantages of Apple over others.

$1000 is still for many-many people both in the US and Europe 2 months of rent, or 3 months of food, so the cost is high. I know plans exist, but then the total cost is actually higher. If people weren't that price sensitive why would the iPhone XR even exist, since its only 30% more expensive than the XS?

The same argument can be made by Samsung's flagships too. If iPhone XS Max or Note 9 offers 100% utility you get 90% for $200, 95% for $300 and 99% for $500.

You are right that if you are locked in to Apple's ecosystem, the opportunity cost of Android is just too high, and Apple succeeded with their plan.

 

[Baymowe335]

$1000 is still for many-many people both in the US and Europe 2 months of rent, or 3 months of food, so the cost is high. I know plans exist, but then the total cost is actually higher. If people weren't that price sensitive why would the iPhone XR even exist, since its only 30% more expensive than the XS?

The same argument can be made by Samsung's flagships too. If iPhone XS Max or Note 9 offers 100% utility you get 90% for $200, 95% for $300 and 99% for $500.

You are right that if you are locked in to Apple's ecosystem, the opportunity cost of Android is just too high, and Apple succeeded with their plan.

I think Apple can have different price points, but not every price point will have all the premium features.

The good part with Apple is all devices get the security updates, support, and build quality.

I don't think the XS Max and Note 9 are the same device, simply because the iOS vs Android factor. That immediately, for me and most Apple customers, makes the iPhone better.

The $200 device and saying 95% is far too high. A $200 device will be worse in every metric, especially camera, processor, and support.

 

[Coconut Bean]

I think Apple can have different price points, but not every price point will have all the premium features.

The good part with Apple is all devices get the security updates, support, and build quality.

I don't think the XS Max and Note 9 are the same device, simply because the iOS vs Android factor. That immediately, for me and most Apple customers, makes the iPhone better.

The $200 device and saying 95% is far too high. A $200 device will be worse in every metric, especially camera, processor, and support.

Yes, Apple's support is superior.

Yes, iOS and Android is a differentiating factor and if you are into Samsung/Android stuff, Note 9 might be somewhat more appealing.

Well, I wrote 90% for $200 and I think that is reasonable. 90% of the stuff people do on there phone is calling/messaging, media consumption (some videos, music), social media, browsing the internet and casual taking pictures. A phone for $200 will easily do that.

The +5% for $300 will get some casual gaming and slight boost in all of the above.

For $500 you get +4% like mobile payment features (Apple Pay and clones), better quality of camera (probably dual camera), wireless charging and maybe water resistance.

And everything above that is niche features such as good AR, awesome screen, awesome camera etc.