I think the author misses the point of the smart speaker market. The question isn't if it will sell or if Apple customers will buy it. I'm sure it's an excellent product and Apple consumers will love it. The question is will it entice others to come into the Apple ecosystem.
For the Homepod to have any value, you must have Apple Music. That currently consists of about 30 million people. That's roughly the maximum amount of Homepods Apple can sell. Some people will buy multiples, others will buy none, so 30 million units seems like a good number. If you don't have Apple Music, there's no reason to buy it. If you haven't tried Apple Music yet, I doubt a $350 speaker will get you to try it.
Here is where the problem lies for Apple. Over the holidays, the Alexa app was #1 in the app store and the Google Home was #6. This means that lots of Apple people were trying out competitors smart speakers. It's far more likely that an Apple person will convert to being a Amazon/Google person based on the smart speaker than the other way around. Given that this is the fastest growing tech market since tablets, that's a worry. It's also a worry that people who have smart speakers tend to use their phones less. That's not something Apple wants you to do.
Finally, I think they have a huge Siri problem. Both Google and Amazon are in a race to come up with the best assistant possible, they can do this because they collect information. One of Apple core values is to protect that info. With this limitation, Siri will never be able to compete. What might be a selling point now could become a liability down the road. As people become more comfortable with speakers in their homes, privacy will be less of a concern. At that point, the battle will be about what the assistant can do. Siri will have a hard time keeping up without that information.
I think living in the iPod past and thinking that Apple will always win, isn't helpful. Apple TV didn't over take Roku and Apple Music didn't hurt Spotify. Given the limitations, it's hard to believe that the Homepod will make a massive impact in the smart speaker market.
On this one, I believe Daniel is entirely wrong. I'll stick my neck out and say: it' is a silly analogy. The HomePod will do fine, e.g., sell a couple-of-ten millions, but it will not achieve anything close to the sales, leave alone the iconic impact of, the iPod. There is already an established market for these devices, and the two leading companies in this market are no slouches. Moreover, they've already defined the basic rules of the game. I do not see any major additional functionality that the HP brings. I agree that the design is beautiful, and I have no doubt that the sound quality is better.
If I am proven wrong, I'll be one happy shareholder, but unfortunately this'll be an also-ran product in Apple's menu of hardware offerings. In fact, even if it does about as well as AppleTV in terms of sales, I'll eat my words.
While you may well be right, you’ve offered no reasons for being right. All of the reasons given similarly existed for the other Apple product successes — established market, other big first movers. These haven’t proven barriers to Apple so I think more reasons are needed to make the claim.
I was specifically referring to the iPod comparison, and not making a broad statement. You are saying that there was an 'established market' for iPod-like devices, and from "big first movers"? Really? Who?
Specific to the iPod comparison, there were a series of companies in the late 90s offering digital audio products including DAT and MiniDisc. In 1998 I bought a Diamond Rio with 16MB of Flash for around $200. These were quite popular alongside the Palm Pilot PDAs. Creative Nomad sold hard drive players with more capacity, but they used a larger, clunky (2.5"?) hard drive. CompUSA had a wide selection of both of these kinds of devices. Apple didn't introduce the iPod in a world that had never seen digital MP3s. They'd been out for 3-4 years, the same as Alexa today.
Analogous to the Alexa/Assistant platforms, there were competitive barriers of audio formats: proprietary standards like MiniDisc, CD ROM players that used AIFF and/or MP3, compact digital players that used MP3, Sony's ATRAC, the music industry's Secure Digital Music Initiative DRM and later Microsoft's WMP, etc. Each of these offered some barriers for iPod to get around in content. Music labels tried to support DRM-locked formats (like Sony's and Microsoft's), threatening that iPod wouldn't be able to get new music. Those problems were all far larger for the relatively small Apple than introducing a Siri-equipped speaker that maybe can't tie into some Alexa apps or talk to your washing machine or whatever.
In 2000 virtually all of the companies that later sold phones introduced MP3 players: Philips, Sony, Sanyo, Sharp, Samsung and LG. Panasonic introduced a new MP3 alongside Apple's iPod. These companies were all bigger, more entrenched and looked far better positioned to sell consumer electronics than Apple, which was generally confined to having a shelf of Macs sitting forlornly at some PC-oriented stores.
Nobody in the industry thought Apple's iPod had any chance of surviving into 2003. Microsoft was supposed to ship its Windows-branded platform RSN around 2002, but didn't manage to get it out until around 2004, by which time iPods had begun shipping in large volumes. But Sony and all of the other conventional audio product makers were all blindsided just as they were in phones, in tablets, in watches, in headphones.
Amazon has given away lots of $30 Dots, but its more expensive $100+ Echo is not selling in vast quantities. Estimates have it at around 11 million total, for all time. 100s of millions of MP3 players were being sold globally as the iPod took off and gained popularity across its first 3-4 years.
And again, Apple isn't trying to erect a monopoly in home audio. It can compete (and be profitable) offering an aspirational device with legendary sound, selling a few million per quarter. That draws people to Apple Music and entrenches the Continuity ecosystem. It then has a base to build from, offering other home devices.
I think there’s a context difference between what’s free in the box, and somebody shopping for a shelf speaker that they presumably want to sound good.
And the market of people shopping for a shelf speaker that sounds good is how big exactly? I would argue Siri and voice UI is way more important than high quality audio and Apple should be gunning for Alexa and Google Assistant. I have no doubt that Apple will sell a good number of HomePods and people will gloat about Apple earning all of the profits in the smart speaker space. Meanwhile Siri and Apple’s voice UI efforts tred water.
I think Alexa is a gimmicky fad. It's handy to be able to occasionally request common tasks by voice, but voice is not a primary UX. We've had the ability to talk to computers and use voice control since the 80s but it has never rivaled pointing and clicking. We've had dictation for years but only a few people use it very often. Siri opened up useful ways to interact with iOS, initially as a marketing gimmick, then becoming useful in accessibility and in specific cases such as HandsFree and CarPlay and with wearables like Apple Watch and AirPods as an alternative way to do things when your hands are busy.
But Apple already has Siri everywhere, and is incrementally making it more useful for developers. Alexa is signing up lots of companies to do things that aren't really that useful. The majority of Alexa is asking to turn on Hue lights or stream music. Siri is fine for that. The fact that Amazon is trying to get Alexa into the car, 4 years after Car Play was launched, should give you an indication of who is actually ahead, even with the phony anti-apple propaganda channels that have been broadcasting false facts for decades now.
The market for home speakers? Potentially everyone with a TV. HomePod would make an awesome soundbar, and doubles as a AirPlay speaker and Apple Music streaming device. The primary reason Alexa is perceived as being better than Siri is that Echos have multiple listening mics while iOS devices are constrained by a small mic and battery limitations. Lets see Alexa working awesome on a phone compared to Siri. Oh wait, we can't because Fire Phone tanked, remember?
I think there’s a context difference between what’s free in the box, and somebody shopping for a shelf speaker that they presumably want to sound good.
And the market of people shopping for a shelf speaker that sounds good is how big exactly? I would argue Siri and voice UI is way more important than high quality audio and Apple should be gunning for Alexa and Google Assistant. I have no doubt that Apple will sell a good number of HomePods and people will gloat about Apple earning all of the profits in the smart speaker space. Meanwhile Siri and Apple’s voice UI efforts tred water.
I think Alexa is a gimmicky fad. It's handy to be able to occasionally request common tasks by voice, but voice is not a primary UX. We've had the ability to talk to computers and use voice control since the 80s but it has never rivaled pointing and clicking. We've had dictation for years but only a few people use it very often. Siri opened up useful ways to interact with iOS, initially as a marketing gimmick, then becoming useful in accessibility and in specific cases such as HandsFree and CarPlay and with wearables like Apple Watch and AirPods as an alternative way to do things when your hands are busy.
But Apple already has Siri everywhere, and is incrementally making it more useful for developers. Alexa is signing up lots of companies to do things that aren't really that useful. The majority of Alexa is asking to turn on Hue lights or stream music. Siri is fine for that. The fact that Amazon is trying to get Alexa into the car, 4 years after Car Play was launched, should give you an indication of who is actually ahead, even with the phony anti-apple propaganda channels that have been broadcasting false facts for decades now.
The market for home speakers? Potentially everyone with a TV. HomePod would make an awesome soundbar, and doubles as a AirPlay speaker and Apple Music streaming device. The primary reason Alexa is perceived as being better than Siri is that Echos have multiple listening mics while iOS devices are constrained by a small mic and battery limitations. Lets see Alexa working awesome on a phone compared to Siri. Oh wait, we can't because Fire Phone tanked, remember?
Do you know someone who needs a soundbar and doesn't already have one? That's the beauty of the Google and Amazon systems. They work with what you already have. You can just plug in a Echo Dot or a Chromecast and your off. Most people who would spend $350 for a single speaker already a have a surround system. Why not use what you already have? 5.1 surround with a $50 Dot will sound much better than a $350 single speaker, no matter how high tech it is.
On this one, I believe Daniel is entirely wrong. I'll stick my neck out and say: it' is a silly analogy. The HomePod will do fine, e.g., sell a couple-of-ten millions, but it will not achieve anything close to the sales, leave alone the iconic impact of, the iPod. There is already an established market for these devices, and the two leading companies in this market are no slouches. Moreover, they've already defined the basic rules of the game. I do not see any major additional functionality that the HP brings. I agree that the design is beautiful, and I have no doubt that the sound quality is better.
If I am proven wrong, I'll be one happy shareholder, but unfortunately this'll be an also-ran product in Apple's menu of hardware offerings. In fact, even if it does about as well as AppleTV in terms of sales, I'll eat my words.
While you may well be right, you’ve offered no reasons for being right. All of the reasons given similarly existed for the other Apple product successes — established market, other big first movers. These haven’t proven barriers to Apple so I think more reasons are needed to make the claim.
I was specifically referring to the iPod comparison, and not making a broad statement. You are saying that there was an 'established market' for iPod-like devices, and from "big first movers"? Really? Who?
Specific to the iPod comparison, there were a series of companies in the late 90s offering digital audio products including DAT and MiniDisc. In 1998 I bought a Diamond Rio with 16MB of Flash for around $200. These were quite popular alongside the Palm Pilot PDAs. Creative Nomad sold hard drive players with more capacity, but they used a larger, clunky (2.5"?) hard drive. CompUSA had a wide selection of both of these kinds of devices. Apple didn't introduce the iPod in a world that had never seen digital MP3s. They'd been out for 3-4 years, the same as Alexa today.
Analogous to the Alexa/Assistant platforms, there were competitive barriers of audio formats: proprietary standards like MiniDisc, CD ROM players that used AIFF and/or MP3, compact digital players that used MP3, Sony's ATRAC, the music industry's Secure Digital Music Initiative DRM and later Microsoft's WMP, etc. Each of these offered some barriers for iPod to get around in content. Music labels tried to support DRM-locked formats (like Sony's and Microsoft's), threatening that iPod wouldn't be able to get new music. Those problems were all far larger for the relatively small Apple than introducing a Siri-equipped speaker that maybe can't tie into some Alexa apps or talk to your washing machine or whatever.
In 2000 virtually all of the companies that later sold phones introduced MP3 players: Philips, Sony, Sanyo, Sharp, Samsung and LG. Panasonic introduced a new MP3 alongside Apple's iPod. These companies were all bigger, more entrenched and looked far better positioned to sell consumer electronics than Apple, which was generally confined to having a shelf of Macs sitting forlornly at some PC-oriented stores.
Nobody in the industry thought Apple's iPod had any chance of surviving into 2003. Microsoft was supposed to ship its Windows-branded platform RSN around 2002, but didn't manage to get it out until around 2004, by which time iPods had begun shipping in large volumes. But Sony and all of the other conventional audio product makers were all blindsided just as they were in phones, in tablets, in watches, in headphones.
Amazon has given away lots of $30 Dots, but its more expensive $100+ Echo is not selling in vast quantities. Estimates have it at around 11 million total, for all time. 100s of millions of MP3 players were being sold globally as the iPod took off and gained popularity across its first 3-4 years.
And again, Apple isn't trying to erect a monopoly in home audio. It can compete (and be profitable) offering an aspirational device with legendary sound, selling a few million per quarter. That draws people to Apple Music and entrenches the Continuity ecosystem. It then has a base to build from, offering other home devices.
I think you're not remembering history correctly. When the 1st iPod was released, there wasn't a dominate name in MP3 players. There was a muddle of competitors with no real leader. Everything had changed due to the Napster debacle. There was a even playing field and everyone was starting from ground zero. What people forget is that it wasn't the iPod that changed everything, it was iTunes. It gave people a way to manage their music legally, affordably, and easily. Itunes was the game changer. Napster presented the problem and iTunes was the solution. Consumers justified the purchase of the iPod because they felt they would save $ in the long run by paying for individual songs.
The narrative that Apple comes in and disrupts established markets is a false one. What they do is get into markets without a strong leader and dominate them. Blackberry was only 10yrs old when the 1st iPhone came out. Only businessmen had Blackberry phones. This was still the early days of the smartphone. There wasn't a leader in the tablet field when the iPad came out. Whenever Apple has come into a market with a strong established leader, they haven't disrupted it. See Mac's in the 90's, Ping vs Facebook, Apple TV vs Roku, or Apple Music vs Spotify as proof.
I think the author misses the point of the smart speaker market. The question isn't if it will sell or if Apple customers will buy it. I'm sure it's an excellent product and Apple consumers will love it. The question is will it entice others to come into the Apple ecosystem.
For the Homepod to have any value, you must have Apple Music. That currently consists of about 30 million people. That's roughly the maximum amount of Homepods Apple can sell. Some people will buy multiples, others will buy none, so 30 million units seems like a good number. If you don't have Apple Music, there's no reason to buy it. If you haven't tried Apple Music yet, I doubt a $350 speaker will get you to try it.
Here is where the problem lies for Apple. Over the holidays, the Alexa app was #1 in the app store and the Google Home was #6. This means that lots of Apple people were trying out competitors smart speakers. It's far more likely that an Apple person will convert to being a Amazon/Google person based on the smart speaker than the other way around. Given that this is the fastest growing tech market since tablets, that's a worry. It's also a worry that people who have smart speakers tend to use their phones less. That's not something Apple wants you to do.
Finally, I think they have a huge Siri problem. Both Google and Amazon are in a race to come up with the best assistant possible, they can do this because they collect information. One of Apple core values is to protect that info. With this limitation, Siri will never be able to compete. What might be a selling point now could become a liability down the road. As people become more comfortable with speakers in their homes, privacy will be less of a concern. At that point, the battle will be about what the assistant can do. Siri will have a hard time keeping up without that information.
I think living in the iPod past and thinking that Apple will always win, isn't helpful. Apple TV didn't over take Roku and Apple Music didn't hurt Spotify. Given the limitations, it's hard to believe that the Homepod will make a massive impact in the smart speaker market.
As I noted earlier in the comments, iPod faced far greater barriers to adoption in content and competitive hardware. And yet what happened?
HomePod has value without Apple Music - it's an AirPlay speaker with Siri. You just can't ask for deep metadata information if you're playing your own local library or using an app like Spotify. Alexa devices also require a streaming subscription to play music. Hard to see what your point is. You think Apple Music will suddenly stop growing, and that nobody will want to take full advantage of a new speaker they just bought?
Sonos, Spotify and others are all running scared because they really don't make much money in this category. Spotify claims more subscribers but it has never been profitable. There's no money in streaming commercial music. It's unclear how Spotify will ever make money, and that's not a way to run a sustainable business. What happens as Apple Music begins peeling away subscribers? Death spiral.
People trying out the Alexa app is not evidence of people buying into an ecosystem. Alexa is a gimmicky fad. Nobody is giving up their smartphone to talk to a speaker. What a bizarre fantasy. Also, if Alexa buyers spent even 25% less time on their smartphone (totally nutty), how does that affect Apple? 25% fewer phone purchases? That's not how numbers work.
Apple/Amazon customers have significant overlap in the US. People with an iPhone, Apple Watch and AirPods are not going to stop using all their hardware to devote allegiance to Alexa. That's not happening. It's a totally silly idea that i could happen. Literally everything you say here is wishful thinking of a contrived idea of how Apple could possibly be affected by Alexa, four years after zero impact and weak adoption. You are reciting the same old talking points about how terribly important Alexa is. It isn't. What wonderful information does Alexa have access to that Siri doesn't? And who sees any of this as a competitive differentiation? All completely hot air.
I think you're not remembering history correctly. When the 1st iPod was released, there wasn't a dominate name in MP3 players. There was a muddle of competitors with no real leader. Everything had changed due to the Napster debacle. There was a even playing field and everyone was starting from ground zero. What people forget is that it wasn't the iPod that changed everything, it was iTunes. It gave people a way to manage their music legally, affordably, and easily. Itunes was the game changer. Napster presented the problem and iTunes was the solution. Consumers justified the purchase of the iPod because they felt they would save $ in the long run by paying for individual songs.
The narrative that Apple comes in and disrupts established markets is a false one. What they do is get into markets without a strong leader and dominate them. Blackberry was only 10yrs old when the 1st iPhone came out. Only businessmen had Blackberry phones. This was still the early days of the smartphone. There wasn't a leader in the tablet field when the iPad came out. Whenever Apple has come into a market with a strong established leader, they haven't disrupted it. See Mac's in the 90's, Ping vs Facebook, Apple TV vs Roku, or Apple Music vs Spotify as proof.
Oh come on. There were several dominate names in MP3 players, all of which were selling devices faster than Amazon Alexa and Google Home, which are tiny niche products. that get tons of press for little merit.
Nobody bought into iTunes to "save money on songs." iPod sales were supported by ripped MP3s from user's own CDs. iTunes Store later let people buy songs without dealing with junk download problems. Tons of people continued to by off brand MP3 players and torrent stolen songs. Today they'd be using Android, but its the same group.
Saying smartphones didn't have a strong leader in 2007 is absoluely assenine. Nokia, RIM, WiMo/HTC, Motorola, Samsung, Sony were actualy making tons of money in smartphones before iPhone hit. Smartphones had been "established" for far longer than Alexa, which has only been around less than 4 years and has only been trumped up over the last year. Samsung was leading windows tablets with Microsoft, which had been trying to sell them for ten freaking years.
Macs weren't introduced in the 90s. Ping was a failed partnership with Facebook(!), Roku began selling content affiliate subscripions long after Apple TV was unveiled, and Apple Music is killing Spotify's ability to make any money at all. 100% wrong on every idea.
If you're going to come out blazing "you're not remembering history correctly" you should at least be armed with something that isn't just obvious nonsense.
With Spotify, they have over have twice as many paying users as Apple. It's been a couple of years and Apple hasn't peeled off Subscribers. With Jimmy Iovine leaving, it seems like that race is done. Spotify continues to grow at a phenomenal rate. It wouldn't be terribly shocking for Google or Amazon to purchase them.
You are calling Alexa a fad, that doesn't seems to be what the stats say - http://nationalpublicmedia.com/smart-audio-report-fall-winter-2017/ ; In fact they are growing faster than smartphones and tablest and have easily outpaced wearable. Smart speakers are the next thing. Apple knows this, that's why they released the Homepod. If they thought smart speakers were a fad, they wouldn't release it. Just liked they didn't release Apple glasses.
You would only use the Alexa app if you had a speaker. It being #1 in the app store isn't good for Apple. It means that millions of Apple users brought Alexa into their homes over the holidays. There's no way to blow that off
Saying you can use Homepod with Spotify as dumb speaker makes no sense. Nobody with a Spotify account is going to buy the HP just for the sound. You buy a smart speaker to use the assistant.
This product will be great for pre existing Apple Music users. It will turn a nice profit for Apple. It will have no effect on the rest of the smart speaker buyers.
I think you're not remembering history correctly. When the 1st iPod was released, there wasn't a dominate name in MP3 players. There was a muddle of competitors with no real leader. Everything had changed due to the Napster debacle. There was a even playing field and everyone was starting from ground zero. What people forget is that it wasn't the iPod that changed everything, it was iTunes. It gave people a way to manage their music legally, affordably, and easily. Itunes was the game changer. Napster presented the problem and iTunes was the solution. Consumers justified the purchase of the iPod because they felt they would save $ in the long run by paying for individual songs.
The narrative that Apple comes in and disrupts established markets is a false one. What they do is get into markets without a strong leader and dominate them. Blackberry was only 10yrs old when the 1st iPhone came out. Only businessmen had Blackberry phones. This was still the early days of the smartphone. There wasn't a leader in the tablet field when the iPad came out. Whenever Apple has come into a market with a strong established leader, they haven't disrupted it. See Mac's in the 90's, Ping vs Facebook, Apple TV vs Roku, or Apple Music vs Spotify as proof.
Oh come on. There were several dominate names in MP3 players, all of which were selling devices faster than Amazon Alexa and Google Home, which are tiny niche products. that get tons of press for little merit.
Nobody bought into iTunes to "save money on songs." iPod sales were supported by ripped MP3s from user's own CDs. iTunes Store later let people buy songs without dealing with junk download problems. Tons of people continued to by off brand MP3 players and torrent stolen songs. Today they'd be using Android, but its the same group.
Saying smartphones didn't have a strong leader in 2007 is absoluely assenine. Nokia, RIM, WiMo/HTC, Motorola, Samsung, Sony were actualy making tons of money in smartphones before iPhone hit. Smartphones had been "established" for far longer than Alexa, which has only been around less than 4 years and has only been trumped up over the last year. Samsung was leading windows tablets with Microsoft, which had been trying to sell them for ten freaking years.
Macs weren't introduced in the 90s. Ping was a failed partnership with Facebook(!), Roku began selling content affiliate subscripions long after Apple TV was unveiled, and Apple Music is killing Spotify's ability to make any money at all. 100% wrong on every idea.
If you're going to come out blazing "you're not remembering history correctly" you should at least be armed with something that isn't just obvious nonsense.
I see 2007 as an extinction event for all smartphone operating systems other than iOS. Even Android OS morphed from a keypad to touch overnight, and now, it's just iOS and Android OS, plus the Android OS forks.
Apple's entry into streaming music forced Spotify to move to a paid subscription model, and yes, it is a money losing operation. Apple, Google, and Amazon are in better position to survive the long term merely because they can subsidize the music streaming operation at little profit and even small losses, and they each have a broad range of media available to their customers.
You would only use the Alexa app if you had a speaker. It being #1 in the app store isn't good for Apple. It means that millions of Apple users brought Alexa into their homes over the holidays. There's no way to blow that off
I don't want to dismiss Alexa, but it's worth noting that FitBit had the top app in the app store just two years ago, and yet that hasn't been much of a problem for Apple Watch's sales performance over the last two years. Maybe the smart speaker market will prove to be extremely important and Alexa will dominate, but sometimes it can be tough to distinguish tech fads from long-term trends, especially when the product in question is dirt cheap.
I think you're not remembering history correctly. When the 1st iPod was released, there wasn't a dominate name in MP3 players. There was a muddle of competitors with no real leader. Everything had changed due to the Napster debacle. There was a even playing field and everyone was starting from ground zero. What people forget is that it wasn't the iPod that changed everything, it was iTunes. It gave people a way to manage their music legally, affordably, and easily. Itunes was the game changer. Napster presented the problem and iTunes was the solution. Consumers justified the purchase of the iPod because they felt they would save $ in the long run by paying for individual songs.
The narrative that Apple comes in and disrupts established markets is a false one. What they do is get into markets without a strong leader and dominate them. Blackberry was only 10yrs old when the 1st iPhone came out. Only businessmen had Blackberry phones. This was still the early days of the smartphone. There wasn't a leader in the tablet field when the iPad came out. Whenever Apple has come into a market with a strong established leader, they haven't disrupted it. See Mac's in the 90's, Ping vs Facebook, Apple TV vs Roku, or Apple Music vs Spotify as proof.
Oh come on. There were several dominate names in MP3 players, all of which were selling devices faster than Amazon Alexa and Google Home, which are tiny niche products. that get tons of press for little merit.
Nobody bought into iTunes to "save money on songs." iPod sales were supported by ripped MP3s from user's own CDs. iTunes Store later let people buy songs without dealing with junk download problems. Tons of people continued to by off brand MP3 players and torrent stolen songs. Today they'd be using Android, but its the same group.
Saying smartphones didn't have a strong leader in 2007 is absoluely assenine. Nokia, RIM, WiMo/HTC, Motorola, Samsung, Sony were actualy making tons of money in smartphones before iPhone hit. Smartphones had been "established" for far longer than Alexa, which has only been around less than 4 years and has only been trumped up over the last year. Samsung was leading windows tablets with Microsoft, which had been trying to sell them for ten freaking years.
Macs weren't introduced in the 90s. Ping was a failed partnership with Facebook(!), Roku began selling content affiliate subscripions long after Apple TV was unveiled, and Apple Music is killing Spotify's ability to make any money at all. 100% wrong on every idea.
If you're going to come out blazing "you're not remembering history correctly" you should at least be armed with something that isn't just obvious nonsense.
One of the huge selling points, post Napster, was the $.99 song. The idea that you bought the song you wanted and not an entire album was revolutionary. High mark to Apple for that.
Nobody is making money on streaming music. Not Spotify, not Apple, not Amazon. But isn't that part of the point? Apple wasn't able to revolutionize streaming. That's part of my point with the article. It pretends that everything Apple touches turns to gold. That's not the case. Apple is a great company. A massive money maker. A dominant force in tech. But, they do make mistakes and fail in certain markets. I think this will be one where they have little impact.
You would only use the Alexa app if you had a speaker. It being #1 in the app store isn't good for Apple. It means that millions of Apple users brought Alexa into their homes over the holidays. There's no way to blow that off
I don't want to dismiss Alexa, but it's worth noting that FitBit had the top app in the app store just two years ago, and yet that hasn't been much of a problem for Apple Watch's sales performance over the last two years. Maybe the smart speaker market will prove to be extremely important and Alexa will dominate, but sometimes it can be tough to distinguish tech fads from long-term trends, especially when the product in question is dirt cheap.
I don't disagree with that. The main difference is that FitBit is a tiny company. Google and Amazon are behemoths that have learned a lot at the feet of Apple. They won't be as easy to push out.
Consumer electronics doesn't really come into the equation. The iPod needed a computer. One of the big reasons for the iPod's success was the simple fact that almost every year, Apple sucked storage capacity out of the market. A market that largely hinged on that factor. With such large orders for storage, competitors found it almost impossible to get the amounts they needed and when they did, it was at prices far higher than what Apple was getting.
Apple quickly had a de facto stranglehold on the MP3 player market.
It was also the darling of the press at the time, which helped it enormously.
In the case of Sony, it made numerous strategic errors at the time but also had its wider problems to contend with.
Minidisc was great but Sony didn't really develop it beyond audio. Data storage would have been great but they just dipped a toe in that area (committing more errors in the process) and left it until it was too late. It was doomed but they could have squeezed much more out of it.
Consumer electronics doesn't really come into the equation. The iPod needed a computer. One of the big reasons for the iPod's success was the simple fact that almost every year, Apple sucked storage capacity out of the market. A market that largely hinged on that factor. With such large orders for storage, competitors found it almost impossible to get the amounts they needed and when they did, it was at prices far higher than what Apple was getting.
Apple quickly had a de facto stranglehold on the MP3 player market.
It was also the darling of the press at the time, which helped it enormously.
In the case of Sony, it made numerous strategic errors at the time but also had its wider problems to contend with.
Minidisc was great but Sony didn't really develop it beyond audio. Data storage would have been great but they just dipped a toe in that area (committing more errors in the process) and left it until it was too late. It was doomed but they could have squeezed much more out of it.
The simple fact is that Apple was ahead of the curve on every piece of technology in each generation of iPod, including iTunes, and iTunes store. Its monopsony position in flash memory, thank you very much Tim Cook, came after the iPod became a success, mostly due to every other player being total shit, including Sony's stuff.
It was like clubbing baby seals, and it happened again with smartphones, watches and Air Pods and quite a bit of other stuff. For the most part, the competition is not up to Apple's standards. It will probably even happen with the HomePod, because Apple controls its ecosystem, and can fine tune its software, firmware, and hardware.
On this one, I believe Daniel is entirely wrong....There is already an established market for these devices, and the two leading companies in this market are no slouches
...
To be fair, when the iPod came out there was already an established market for portable music devices<
That being said, I agree that the HomePod will not set the world on fire. I bet they will sell way more than analysts think, and I bet there are more variations already well past the mock-up state in their secret labs.
And, I bet with my pocketbook - I placed an order this morning. Though, I hedged a bit. I had been planning on buying two, but when news came out that some features would come later I decided to get just one and see how I like it. I don't plan to use AppleMusic, so we'll see how it goes.
Yup. Read the article. Maybe you’re too young to remember but Creative (Labs) and Diamond used to be big players.
You just know some of those Creative guys are sitting around saying "We had it all. We had the market locked up! We didn't deserve what happened to us! We gave the customer exactly what they asked for - FM tuner, lots and lots of buttons! Flashy designs! Hundreds of songs!".
After reading perhaps a dozen articles about HomePod I'm still missing one piece of critical information: Can I use this to replace the speakers I have already in my home?
How can I get sound from my (non-Apple) TV streaming services into HomePod?
Can I play my existing CD and vinyl recordings through this device?
Can I attach a sub-woofer (sorry, but no 4" speaker can deliver really low frequencies)?
FWIW, I will not be buying these soon if they are yet an additional piece of tech to clutter my home. On the other hand, if these little speakers can eliminate some of what's there, I am all ears, and willing to pay the price.
After reading perhaps a dozen articles about HomePod I'm still missing one piece of critical information: Can I use this to replace the speakers I have already in my home?
How can I get sound from my (non-Apple) TV streaming services into HomePod?
Can I play my existing CD and vinyl recordings through this device?
Can I attach a sub-woofer (sorry, but no 4" speaker can deliver really low frequencies)?
FWIW, I will not be buying these soon if they are yet an additional piece of tech to clutter my home. On the other hand, if these little speakers can eliminate some of what's there, I am all ears, and willing to pay the price.
Does anyone know the answer to these questions?
With the caveat that no one outside of Apple really knows much about the HomePod at this point, I think the only way to play music to the HomePod is via AirPlay or streaming from Apple Music and iCloud Music Library. So:
Your non-Apple TV streaming devices won't be able to get sound to the HomePod unless they support AirPlay.
You can play your existing CD collection if you rip them to iTunes and then either AirPlay them or use iCloud Music Library. Vinyl won't work unless you have a record player that supports AirPlay (does that even exist?).
As far as I've read, there's no way to physically connect a sub-woofer. There's a chance that when AirPlay 2 is release that you will be able to sync up a HomePod with an AirPlay 2 enabled sub-woofer, but there's a lot we don't know about that yet.
So I think you're basically correct to not buy one these any time soon given your needs.
Comments
For the Homepod to have any value, you must have Apple Music. That currently consists of about 30 million people. That's roughly the maximum amount of Homepods Apple can sell. Some people will buy multiples, others will buy none, so 30 million units seems like a good number. If you don't have Apple Music, there's no reason to buy it. If you haven't tried Apple Music yet, I doubt a $350 speaker will get you to try it.
Here is where the problem lies for Apple. Over the holidays, the Alexa app was #1 in the app store and the Google Home was #6. This means that lots of Apple people were trying out competitors smart speakers. It's far more likely that an Apple person will convert to being a Amazon/Google person based on the smart speaker than the other way around. Given that this is the fastest growing tech market since tablets, that's a worry. It's also a worry that people who have smart speakers tend to use their phones less. That's not something Apple wants you to do.
Finally, I think they have a huge Siri problem. Both Google and Amazon are in a race to come up with the best assistant possible, they can do this because they collect information. One of Apple core values is to protect that info. With this limitation, Siri will never be able to compete. What might be a selling point now could become a liability down the road. As people become more comfortable with speakers in their homes, privacy will be less of a concern. At that point, the battle will be about what the assistant can do. Siri will have a hard time keeping up without that information.
I think living in the iPod past and thinking that Apple will always win, isn't helpful. Apple TV didn't over take Roku and Apple Music didn't hurt Spotify. Given the limitations, it's hard to believe that the Homepod will make a massive impact in the smart speaker market.
Specific to the iPod comparison, there were a series of companies in the late 90s offering digital audio products including DAT and MiniDisc. In 1998 I bought a Diamond Rio with 16MB of Flash for around $200. These were quite popular alongside the Palm Pilot PDAs. Creative Nomad sold hard drive players with more capacity, but they used a larger, clunky (2.5"?) hard drive. CompUSA had a wide selection of both of these kinds of devices. Apple didn't introduce the iPod in a world that had never seen digital MP3s. They'd been out for 3-4 years, the same as Alexa today.
Analogous to the Alexa/Assistant platforms, there were competitive barriers of audio formats: proprietary standards like MiniDisc, CD ROM players that used AIFF and/or MP3, compact digital players that used MP3, Sony's ATRAC, the music industry's Secure Digital Music Initiative DRM and later Microsoft's WMP, etc. Each of these offered some barriers for iPod to get around in content. Music labels tried to support DRM-locked formats (like Sony's and Microsoft's), threatening that iPod wouldn't be able to get new music. Those problems were all far larger for the relatively small Apple than introducing a Siri-equipped speaker that maybe can't tie into some Alexa apps or talk to your washing machine or whatever.
In 2000 virtually all of the companies that later sold phones introduced MP3 players: Philips, Sony, Sanyo, Sharp, Samsung and LG. Panasonic introduced a new MP3 alongside Apple's iPod. These companies were all bigger, more entrenched and looked far better positioned to sell consumer electronics than Apple, which was generally confined to having a shelf of Macs sitting forlornly at some PC-oriented stores.
Nobody in the industry thought Apple's iPod had any chance of surviving into 2003. Microsoft was supposed to ship its Windows-branded platform RSN around 2002, but didn't manage to get it out until around 2004, by which time iPods had begun shipping in large volumes. But Sony and all of the other conventional audio product makers were all blindsided just as they were in phones, in tablets, in watches, in headphones.
Amazon has given away lots of $30 Dots, but its more expensive $100+ Echo is not selling in vast quantities. Estimates have it at around 11 million total, for all time. 100s of millions of MP3 players were being sold globally as the iPod took off and gained popularity across its first 3-4 years.
And again, Apple isn't trying to erect a monopoly in home audio. It can compete (and be profitable) offering an aspirational device with legendary sound, selling a few million per quarter. That draws people to Apple Music and entrenches the Continuity ecosystem. It then has a base to build from, offering other home devices.
But Apple already has Siri everywhere, and is incrementally making it more useful for developers. Alexa is signing up lots of companies to do things that aren't really that useful. The majority of Alexa is asking to turn on Hue lights or stream music. Siri is fine for that. The fact that Amazon is trying to get Alexa into the car, 4 years after Car Play was launched, should give you an indication of who is actually ahead, even with the phony anti-apple propaganda channels that have been broadcasting false facts for decades now.
The market for home speakers? Potentially everyone with a TV. HomePod would make an awesome soundbar, and doubles as a AirPlay speaker and Apple Music streaming device. The primary reason Alexa is perceived as being better than Siri is that Echos have multiple listening mics while iOS devices are constrained by a small mic and battery limitations. Lets see Alexa working awesome on a phone compared to Siri. Oh wait, we can't because Fire Phone tanked, remember?
The narrative that Apple comes in and disrupts established markets is a false one. What they do is get into markets without a strong leader and dominate them. Blackberry was only 10yrs old when the 1st iPhone came out. Only businessmen had Blackberry phones. This was still the early days of the smartphone. There wasn't a leader in the tablet field when the iPad came out. Whenever Apple has come into a market with a strong established leader, they haven't disrupted it. See Mac's in the 90's, Ping vs Facebook, Apple TV vs Roku, or Apple Music vs Spotify as proof.
People trying out the Alexa app is not evidence of people buying into an ecosystem. Alexa is a gimmicky fad. Nobody is giving up their smartphone to talk to a speaker. What a bizarre fantasy. Also, if Alexa buyers spent even 25% less time on their smartphone (totally nutty), how does that affect Apple? 25% fewer phone purchases? That's not how numbers work.
Apple/Amazon customers have significant overlap in the US. People with an iPhone, Apple Watch and AirPods are not going to stop using all their hardware to devote allegiance to Alexa. That's not happening. It's a totally silly idea that i could happen. Literally everything you say here is wishful thinking of a contrived idea of how Apple could possibly be affected by Alexa, four years after zero impact and weak adoption. You are reciting the same old talking points about how terribly important Alexa is. It isn't. What wonderful information does Alexa have access to that Siri doesn't? And who sees any of this as a competitive differentiation? All completely hot air.
Nobody bought into iTunes to "save money on songs." iPod sales were supported by ripped MP3s from user's own CDs. iTunes Store later let people buy songs without dealing with junk download problems. Tons of people continued to by off brand MP3 players and torrent stolen songs. Today they'd be using Android, but its the same group.
If you're going to come out blazing "you're not remembering history correctly" you should at least be armed with something that isn't just obvious nonsense.
You are calling Alexa a fad, that doesn't seems to be what the stats say - http://nationalpublicmedia.com/smart-audio-report-fall-winter-2017/ ; In fact they are growing faster than smartphones and tablest and have easily outpaced wearable. Smart speakers are the next thing. Apple knows this, that's why they released the Homepod. If they thought smart speakers were a fad, they wouldn't release it. Just liked they didn't release Apple glasses.
Usage matters if people are using a piece of technology less, they are less likely to pay a premium for it. Why pay for an iPhone X if an 8 will suffice? Why purchase the latest model if you don't use it as much? Apple wants you to feel like the iPhone is the most needed tech ever. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/06/amazon-echo-and-other-assistants-often-lower-smartphone-use.html
You would only use the Alexa app if you had a speaker. It being #1 in the app store isn't good for Apple. It means that millions of Apple users brought Alexa into their homes over the holidays. There's no way to blow that off
Saying you can use Homepod with Spotify as dumb speaker makes no sense. Nobody with a Spotify account is going to buy the HP just for the sound. You buy a smart speaker to use the assistant.
This product will be great for pre existing Apple Music users. It will turn a nice profit for Apple. It will have no effect on the rest of the smart speaker buyers.
Apple's entry into streaming music forced Spotify to move to a paid subscription model, and yes, it is a money losing operation. Apple, Google, and Amazon are in better position to survive the long term merely because they can subsidize the music streaming operation at little profit and even small losses, and they each have a broad range of media available to their customers.
The smart phone market in 2006 was tiny. It was wide open for someone to come in with a great product. Apple did just that. The iPhone was revoultionary. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191985/sales-of-smartphones-in-the-us-since-2005/
Macintosh computers have been around since the 80's. We had them in high school. In the 90's the Apple computers chased MS and failed.
Ping wasn't a partnership. It was an Apple program that they tried and failed to integrate with FB.
Apple TV is the 4th best selling streaming device. Behind Roku, Fire TV, and Chromecast, http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/roku-market-share-1202538133/
Nobody is making money on streaming music. Not Spotify, not Apple, not Amazon. But isn't that part of the point? Apple wasn't able to revolutionize streaming. That's part of my point with the article. It pretends that everything Apple touches turns to gold. That's not the case. Apple is a great company. A massive money maker. A dominant force in tech. But, they do make mistakes and fail in certain markets. I think this will be one where they have little impact.
Apple quickly had a de facto stranglehold on the MP3 player market.
It was also the darling of the press at the time, which helped it enormously.
In the case of Sony, it made numerous strategic errors at the time but also had its wider problems to contend with.
Minidisc was great but Sony didn't really develop it beyond audio. Data storage would have been great but they just dipped a toe in that area (committing more errors in the process) and left it until it was too late. It was doomed but they could have squeezed much more out of it.
It was like clubbing baby seals, and it happened again with smartphones, watches and Air Pods and quite a bit of other stuff. For the most part, the competition is not up to Apple's standards. It will probably even happen with the HomePod, because Apple controls its ecosystem, and can fine tune its software, firmware, and hardware.
Below is a link to one fairly complete history.
+https://www.cultofmac.com/124565/an-illustrated-history-of-the-ipod-and-its-massive-impact-ipod-10th-anniversary/
That being said, I agree that the HomePod will not set the world on fire. I bet they will sell way more than analysts think, and I bet there are more variations already well past the mock-up state in their secret labs.
And, I bet with my pocketbook - I placed an order this morning. Though, I hedged a bit. I had been planning on buying two, but when news came out that some features would come later I decided to get just one and see how I like it. I don't plan to use AppleMusic, so we'll see how it goes.
- How can I get sound from my (non-Apple) TV streaming services into HomePod?
- Can I play my existing CD and vinyl recordings through this device?
- Can I attach a sub-woofer (sorry, but no 4" speaker can deliver really low frequencies)?
FWIW, I will not be buying these soon if they are yet an additional piece of tech to clutter my home. On the other hand, if these little speakers can eliminate some of what's there, I am all ears, and willing to pay the price.Does anyone know the answer to these questions?
- Your non-Apple TV streaming devices won't be able to get sound to the HomePod unless they support AirPlay.
- You can play your existing CD collection if you rip them to iTunes and then either AirPlay them or use iCloud Music Library. Vinyl won't work unless you have a record player that supports AirPlay (does that even exist?).
- As far as I've read, there's no way to physically connect a sub-woofer. There's a chance that when AirPlay 2 is release that you will be able to sync up a HomePod with an AirPlay 2 enabled sub-woofer, but there's a lot we don't know about that yet.
So I think you're basically correct to not buy one these any time soon given your needs.Hope this helps!