Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

HomePod Homepod - should (will?) Apple allow other streaming platforms?

maflynn

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
Original poster
May 3, 2009
73,698
43,768
All the reviewers mention this, so i know I'm not breaking ground but we don't have a thread on this topic (AFAIK).

Would it be to Apple's benefit to open up the HomePod?

Would opening it up hurt Apple in the long run?

Would keeping it closed further put pressure on Spotify (more people signing up to Apple Music)?

I do think the HomePod would reach a wider audience and enjoy stronger sales if the HomePod could play music from Pandora/Spotify/Sirius XM/etc. So what are the downsides, clearly the execs at apple are very smart (smarter then me), so what are some of the arguments for keeping it closed.

I'd be very interested in hearing someone in support of only Apple Music on the homePod.
 
Apple wants people to pay for Apple Music instead of for Spotify and the likes.

I don't expect HomePod to be opened to competitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig
maflynn said:
I know, but still by allowing this, they do have the potential of increasing sales.
Click to expand...

I don't think they do have potential to increase sales. At least not by the margin they can leverage a closed system HomePod into gaining Apple Music subscriptions. If they open it up, it ends up competing with Amazon and Google, and they can't win that battle considering the degree to which both have time and development advantage, and products at a fraction of the price.

By keeping HomePod within the ecosystem, they are not competing at all. HomePod sales will flow from existing Apple Music subscriptions, and from product and performance quality attracting new buyers, and those HomePod sales will in turn leverage Apple Music subscriptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig
maflynn said:
All the reviewers mention this, so i know I'm not breaking ground but we don't have a thread on this topic (AFAIK).

Would it be to Apple's benefit to open up the HomePod?

Would opening it up hurt Apple in the long run?

Would keeping it closed further put pressure on Spotify (more people signing up to Apple Music)?

I do think the HomePod would reach a wider audience and enjoy stronger sales if the HomePod could play music from Pandora/Spotify/Sirius XM/etc. So what are the downsides, clearly the execs at apple are very smart (smarter then me), so what are some of the arguments for keeping it closed.

I'd be very interested in hearing someone in support of only Apple Music on the homePod.
Click to expand...
I wish it would open it to other services. I use Google Play Music so it would be nice for it to support it. But more then that I wish that Apple would open Bluetooth connection, so other device could be paired. They offer Apple Music on Android phones, and by limiting Home Pod to only iOS devices might slowdown Apple Music growth on other platforms.
 
It should and when you think about it if they allow apple music on android why not...

that said improving siri should be the main target
 
I think HomePod and like a marketing tool and Apple will keep the marketing to itself to a point. They compete with Google so they can not control my Nest Thermostats.

All of these devices are marketing tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig
maflynn said:
there's definitely that, the HomePod is a means to increase the music subscription. Much like the iPod was a means for people to buy music from Apple back in the day.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if person has Android device and subscribes to Apple Music and cannot play that subscription on the Home Pod, that will may cause that person to cancel subscription.
 
kawalerzysta said:
Yes, but if person has Android device and subscribes to Apple Music and cannot play that subscription on the Home Pod, that will may cause that person to cancel subscription.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow. If a person subscribes to Apple Music, they CAN play the subscription on the HomePod. Having an Android device is irrelevant.
 
chabig said:
I don’t follow. If a person subscribes to Apple Music, they CAN play the subscription on the HomePod. Having an Android device is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You can have Apple Music subscription on Android. You don't need to own any iOS devices to have it. So if you don't own any iOS devices but have Apple Music subscription on Android phone, you cannot play it on Home Pod because you cannot pair them.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205365
 
No disrespect, but maybe a little sarcasm.............I long ago lost count of all the people on other platforms who keep insisting that Google Home and Amazon Echo are superior to HomePod....cheaper than HomePod.....more versatile than HomePod. Why would they even want one? Ok, I'm done.

Seriously, I do not want Amazon or Google having access to my HP data to use and/or sell. Personally, I think that the Android/Google/Alexa fans have the product that they say they want in the Google Home and Echo/Dot. Why not leave the HomePod for we much maligned Apple ecosystem fans? HP can stand alone in form, function, and quality within the Apple universe and will continue to improve without needing to compete with anyone.

One might want to consider the reason why Amazon and Google can sell their devices so much more cheaply. After all, if they can sell your data over and over to various corporations to market to you or use it to profit from advertising themselves, they could give them away and still be way ahead....the gift that keeps on giving. I prefer paying more for the HomePod with the knowledge that I am not being recorded or that my thermostat; smart speaker; lighting pattern; security camera; home lock information is relatively secure within that Apple ecosystem.
 
I doubt Apple cares to support other music services (since they can still be played on the HP via Airplay). Ultimately, I think they are not banking on people buying the HP and then signing up for Apple Music. They are targeting the existing fanbase who is already in the ecosystem and is going to want all their devices to function together harmoniously.

They will make far more money from hardware sales than they probably do from an Apple music subscription. I read in an article somewhere (can't remember where at the moment), but most of the subscription money from not only Apple music, but Spotify and the likes as well, goes to the record companies and artists. So there is isn't a lot of margin there anyway.

Apple's thought process is genius to be honest. Get people to be "walled in" so deep that it is impossible to leave. I'm super deep into the ecosystem and have no problems with it at all. I have quality products that work great and I am very happy with them. But if Samsung or Google was to release a killer new phone or smart watch, chances are I am not going to buy it because well...a new phone means my AW is useless now or vice versa.
 
Newtons Apple said:
Yep, Apple will take everyone's money!
Click to expand...
Newtons Apple said:
Why thanks, I had no idea.

It was sarcasm which I guess leaped past you! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

With no emoticon and all the negative crap on this forum, yes I guess it probably did.
Maybe you need to learn a little bit about posting and getting your point across?

......of course, you're backpedaling after a stupid post is also a very viable explanation.
 
sam2428 said:
Apple's thought process is genius to be honest. Get people to be "walled in" so deep that it is impossible to leave. I'm super deep into the ecosystem and have no problems with it at all. I have quality products that work great and I am very happy with them. But if Samsung or Google was to release a killer new phone or smart watch, chances are I am not going to buy it because well...a new phone means my AW is useless now or vice versa.
Click to expand...
You might very well be right, but for me personally I find it ethically unsettling how Apple is super willing and able to handcuff their costumers and fans, and it makes it incredibly hard to stay a fan for me. I depend on their products for a fair deal of my living and it hurts my motivation as a developer to get walled in like this. Back in 2004 -2006 i felt the same way about Steve Ballmers Microsoft and the way they dealt with their costumers and what kind of steward they were of the platform they govern, and ultimately I felt relieved after switching. Apple's current business practices feels unethical to me, and it makes me feel like an unethical person for helping them move forward their platform.
 
I don’t think it will happen because Apple isn’t really selling a speaker, they’re selling their ecosystem.

Everything Apple does isn’t for a great standalone product, it’s part of the ecosystem. I don’t think Apple wanted to make an incredible standalone speaker, that’s why you can’t use it as Bluetooth or use other services.

I don’t think it’s to sell Apple Music or to extort Apple Music subscribers per se, I think it’s just more entrenching in their ecosystem. On top of everything else you’ll loose most of the functionality of your speaker.

Same with iMessage. Apple didn’t want to make a great messaging platform, they wanted to create a great inter-Apple communication system.
 
I think that it's in Apple's best interest to open their speaker to the market.

They have competitively the best speaker with the worst assistant. It does HomeKit requests with lightning fast response. It could be a gateway to the ecosystem but they put it in as some form of dungeon treasure, only for those with the key to get in.

It's not like they're losing money every HomePod they put out.
 
I think it will all depend on sales. If this thing is flying off shelves and they are more than happy with the sales, they will not open it to other platforms. IF it is not reaching expectations, they will open this up sooner than later.
 
When the original iPhone was released it didn't have the option to install 3rd party apps. There was a LOT of gnashing of teeth about that. We now know that Apple was already working on a plan to open up the iPhone to 3rd party apps, it just wasn't ready yet. Apple didn't want to delay the iPhone's release so they released what they had working. It was a good idea to get it out the door because we also now know that Google was working on Android. So, clearly, there can be marketing reasons for releasing a product before it's exactly what a company wants to release.

A lot of people predicted that iPhone would fail. We now know they were VERY wrong.

Apple makes the bulk of its profits from selling hardware. Yes, subscriptions to Apple Music are on the rise, but Apple still makes more money from the hardware it sells.

HomePod was released without AirPlay 2. Obviously the *ideal* situation would have been to have AirPlay 2 ready for HomePod's release. For whatever reasons, Apple couldn't make that happen.

Yet, AirPlay 2 *is* coming. Stereo pairs *is* coming. Those are announced and Apple will get it done.

What Apple *doesn't* do (ever) is talk about features or products that haven't been officially announced. So, for all we know, Apple is working on turning on Bluetooth support. For all we know, Apple is also working on supporting streaming music sources other than Apple Music.

Those two things would help sell more hardware. Apple is mostly a hardware company. I think the people at Apple are smart enough to know that a certain percentage of hardware buyers will also subscribe to Apple Music, even if those people purchased the HomePod only because it supported Bluetooth or 3rd party streaming sources.

Either way, Apple sells more hardware.

HomePod is an amazing speaker that is only in need of software updates to add functionality. For people that actually care about sound quality, that is a MUCH better situation than a mediocre speaker that already has more features.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back