Smart speaker market growing steadily but dominated by sub-$50 models

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,283member
    davgreg said:
    Apple really missed the boat with the toilet paper roll in fishnets- must be the same person who suggested the trashcan Mac Pro.

    The Amazon Dot may have a tiny speaker but can be connected to a nice audio system of your choosing. Why listen to a crappy little Apple HomePod when you have serious money invested in an audio system?

    I have a nice system set up in my home complete with Focal speakers and there is not a "smart speaker" at any price that will come near it in sound quality. I can easily add an Amazon Dot and make the thing a "smart speaker", but Apple chose not to give users that option.

    I can already push music to that system via Bluetooth by having added an Audioengine BT module and connecting it with an optical audio link. I can stream music from my Apple TV, my Mac, my iPad Pro or my iPhone to that unit. That is a much more attractive option than the grossly overpriced HomePod.

    The HomePod is a flop. Go into any Apple retail store and the least attended thing inside is that crappy little speaker. It is too expensive for teens and too cheesy and low quality for adults.
    What about users that want a nice stand alone speaker?  I use Homepod in the upstairs of my home which is a floor away from my main home audio system. I also found in my home that the microwave and some other things in my place throw interference into Bluetooth Audio ( Which I previously used ) something I don't worry about with Airplay over Wifi. or just wifi streaming in general.

    What about folks that live in an apartment and don't have the space or ability for a full sized home system, or close confines make it too loud to listen to without complaints?

    "Apple really missed the boat with the toilet paper roll in fishnets- must be the same person who suggested the trashcan Mac Pro".

    "Why listen to a crappy little Apple HomePod when you have serious money invested in an audio system"?

    You're bashing a speaker that doesn't fit your needs and I am not sure why? I mean seriously? Hahaha 

    As I have said to others here why are you comparing a $300.00 speaker to a thousands of dollar home audio system? It's not as though the Homepod is $3500.00?

    You're whole post really doesn't make sense. NO shit a full home system sounds better than Homepod. Any fool would know and understand that. Does Homepod sound as good as, or better than speakers in it's price range HELL yes it does. If you say otherwise you are being disingenuous at best..



    mobirdpscooter63StrangeDaysmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 30
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    flydog said:
    cornchip said:
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple ever intended to compete in this market so I find these articles ridiculous.
    So you think this is one of those one-off "fun" projects that was never intended on its own to be a competitive success? Serious question. You wouldn't be the first person to hold that opinion, tho Apple did go to a lot of effort in initially promoting it. 

    Just guessing, but I think he might have meant Apple never intended to compete in the $50 end of the connected speaker market. I would agree. Just like Apple never intended to compete in the low-end computer, phone, tablet, ("smart") watch markets. While iPods did get fairly affordable over time, they were still more expensive than most competitors that arrived. As we all know, Apple mostly doesn't give a rip about market share but revenue per unit. Can they sell enough to recoup the cost of investment (including man hours) and then enough to invest in the next gen/variants? Then great. If not, it'll get axed.

    I have a feeling HP will slowly to catch on. I know I'm chomping at the bit for a couple, but financially, I'm a couple years out. And that's fine with me, I'd rather pay a fair price for something high-quality than fifty bucks for a piece of junk. But that's just me.

    PS I can totally see Apple going the iPhone route and continue selling the previous model when the new gen comes out. Boom there's your lower cost option.
    This is complete bullshit. Of course Apple cares about market share. You don’t have an ecosystem and can’t sell services on top of it if you don’t have market share. Apple sells millions of Macs, iPads and Apple Watches each quarter. Are you telling me the wouldn’t love it if they were selling millions of HomePods too? Tim Cook doesn’t even mention it on earnings calls. I think it’s pretty clear the product is a failure. Mostly because Apple went after what people weren’t asking for. People that want a smart speaker care about price more than audio quality and people who care about audio quality have something better than HomePod. If Apple really is focused on sound quality and not voice then why not make a really great sound bar or home theater system? I would never replace my sound bar with a HomePod but if Apple made a superior sound bar I just might.

    You have zero knowledge of how many HomePods Apple has sold or how much profit it has earned on them, yet you feel qualified enough on the subject to opine that "the product is a failure" simply because some third-party research firm (who is just as ignorant) declared that the HomePod has small market share of a market composed primarily of sub-$50 knockoffs.

    Ok. 
    I know enough just based on earnings calls and Apple events where HomePod is barely mentioned. And who cares about the profit earned on a device that doesn’t sell very well. You can say it’s wrong to compare HomePod to cheaper ‘smart’ speakers but not really if the cheaper speakers are what people are buying. The market decides in the end. But if you’ve got data that shows HomePod is popular and selling well I’ll certainly look at it.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 23 of 30
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,067member
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple ever intended to compete in this market so I find these articles ridiculous.
    So you think this is one of those one-off "fun" projects that was never intended on its own to be a competitive success? Serious question. You wouldn't be the first person to hold that opinion, tho Apple did go to a lot of effort in initially promoting it. 
    Revenue and profit is what determines a success to Apple, not market share. If the HP generates a satisfactory amount of profit from its revenue then it’s a success. Touting market share is just how the cheapies move the goal posts. 
  • Reply 24 of 30
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,067member

    cornchip said:
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple ever intended to compete in this market so I find these articles ridiculous.
    So you think this is one of those one-off "fun" projects that was never intended on its own to be a competitive success? Serious question. You wouldn't be the first person to hold that opinion, tho Apple did go to a lot of effort in initially promoting it. 

    Just guessing, but I think he might have meant Apple never intended to compete in the $50 end of the connected speaker market. I would agree. Just like Apple never intended to compete in the low-end computer, phone, tablet, ("smart") watch markets. While iPods did get fairly affordable over time, they were still more expensive than most competitors that arrived. As we all know, Apple mostly doesn't give a rip about market share but revenue per unit. Can they sell enough to recoup the cost of investment (including man hours) and then enough to invest in the next gen/variants? Then great. If not, it'll get axed.

    I have a feeling HP will slowly to catch on. I know I'm chomping at the bit for a couple, but financially, I'm a couple years out. And that's fine with me, I'd rather pay a fair price for something high-quality than fifty bucks for a piece of junk. But that's just me.

    PS I can totally see Apple going the iPhone route and continue selling the previous model when the new gen comes out. Boom there's your lower cost option.
    This is complete bullshit. Of course Apple cares about market share. You don’t have an ecosystem and can’t sell services on top of it if you don’t have market share. Apple sells millions of Macs, iPads and Apple Watches each quarter. Are you telling me the wouldn’t love it if they were selling millions of HomePods too? Tim Cook doesn’t even mention it on earnings calls. I think it’s pretty clear the product is a failure. Mostly because Apple went after what people weren’t asking for. People that want a smart speaker care about price more than audio quality and people who care about audio quality have something better than HomePod. If Apple really is focused on sound quality and not voice then why not make a really great sound bar or home theater system? I would never replace my sound bar with a HomePod but if Apple made a superior sound bar I just might.
    Talk about bullshit... HP isn’t a smart speaker, it’s a high-quality shelf speaker that has a voice interface. 

    I replaced both my Anthony Gallo home theater, and the Sonos Play sound bar with two HPs. Smaller, easier to use, and the sound is the right balance — better than the Sonos, perhaps not better than the Anthony Gallos but much smaller amount of gear and way cleaner in the room. 

    Sounds like you’ve misunderstood what the product is.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 30
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,067member

    Rayz2016 said:

    cornchip said:
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple ever intended to compete in this market so I find these articles ridiculous.
    So you think this is one of those one-off "fun" projects that was never intended on its own to be a competitive success? Serious question. You wouldn't be the first person to hold that opinion, tho Apple did go to a lot of effort in initially promoting it. 

    Just guessing, but I think he might have meant Apple never intended to compete in the $50 end of the connected speaker market. I would agree. Just like Apple never intended to compete in the low-end computer, phone, tablet, ("smart") watch markets. While iPods did get fairly affordable over time, they were still more expensive than most competitors that arrived. As we all know, Apple mostly doesn't give a rip about market share but revenue per unit. Can they sell enough to recoup the cost of investment (including man hours) and then enough to invest in the next gen/variants? Then great. If not, it'll get axed.

    I have a feeling HP will slowly to catch on. I know I'm chomping at the bit for a couple, but financially, I'm a couple years out. And that's fine with me, I'd rather pay a fair price for something high-quality than fifty bucks for a piece of junk. But that's just me.

    PS I can totally see Apple going the iPhone route and continue selling the previous model when the new gen comes out. Boom there's your lower cost option.
    This is complete bullshit. Of course Apple cares about market share. You don’t have an ecosystem and can’t sell services on top of it if you don’t have market share. Apple sells millions of Macs, iPads and Apple Watches each quarter. Are you telling me the wouldn’t love it if they were selling millions of HomePods too? Tim Cook doesn’t even mention it on earnings calls. I think it’s pretty clear the product is a failure. Mostly because Apple went after what people weren’t asking for. People that want a smart speaker care about price more than audio quality and people who care about audio quality have something better than HomePod. If Apple really is focused on sound quality and not voice then why not make a really great sound bar or home theater system? I would never replace my sound bar with a HomePod but if Apple made a superior sound bar I just might.
    Ah, bringing the narrow viewpoint to the table yet again. No matter how many times it’s explained to you, you still don’t get it. 

    Apple doesn’t care about market share. It cares about profit share, which translates to grabbing the largest share of the most valuable customers and holding on to them. It does not care about grabbing the biggest share of people who don’t want to pay for anything, and the HomePod reflects that. 

    They don’t make cheap products because they’re not interested in cheap customers and razor-thin margins. 

    Apple could easily sell millions more HomePods, by knocking the price down to $20. Would that bring more people to the Apple ecosystem? Of course not! Because the people who only want to pay $20 for a smart speaker are unlikely to pay monthly for the wedge of subscriptions that Apple wants to sell them. 

    Why doesn’t Apple make a home theatre system? For the Sam reason Apple doesn’t get into televisions: a crowded field with razor thin margins. 

    Look at Spotify. Huge market share, but how much money are they making?

    Nailed it. Makes me wonder, how can people who read this site as frequently as they do completely fail to grasp how Apple operates or what is important to it? Such a head scratcher. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 30
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,067member
    flydog said:
    cornchip said:
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple ever intended to compete in this market so I find these articles ridiculous.
    So you think this is one of those one-off "fun" projects that was never intended on its own to be a competitive success? Serious question. You wouldn't be the first person to hold that opinion, tho Apple did go to a lot of effort in initially promoting it. 

    Just guessing, but I think he might have meant Apple never intended to compete in the $50 end of the connected speaker market. I would agree. Just like Apple never intended to compete in the low-end computer, phone, tablet, ("smart") watch markets. While iPods did get fairly affordable over time, they were still more expensive than most competitors that arrived. As we all know, Apple mostly doesn't give a rip about market share but revenue per unit. Can they sell enough to recoup the cost of investment (including man hours) and then enough to invest in the next gen/variants? Then great. If not, it'll get axed.

    I have a feeling HP will slowly to catch on. I know I'm chomping at the bit for a couple, but financially, I'm a couple years out. And that's fine with me, I'd rather pay a fair price for something high-quality than fifty bucks for a piece of junk. But that's just me.

    PS I can totally see Apple going the iPhone route and continue selling the previous model when the new gen comes out. Boom there's your lower cost option.
    This is complete bullshit. Of course Apple cares about market share. You don’t have an ecosystem and can’t sell services on top of it if you don’t have market share. Apple sells millions of Macs, iPads and Apple Watches each quarter. Are you telling me the wouldn’t love it if they were selling millions of HomePods too? Tim Cook doesn’t even mention it on earnings calls. I think it’s pretty clear the product is a failure. Mostly because Apple went after what people weren’t asking for. People that want a smart speaker care about price more than audio quality and people who care about audio quality have something better than HomePod. If Apple really is focused on sound quality and not voice then why not make a really great sound bar or home theater system? I would never replace my sound bar with a HomePod but if Apple made a superior sound bar I just might.

    You have zero knowledge of how many HomePods Apple has sold or how much profit it has earned on them, yet you feel qualified enough on the subject to opine that "the product is a failure" simply because some third-party research firm (who is just as ignorant) declared that the HomePod has small market share of a market composed primarily of sub-$50 knockoffs.

    Ok. 
    I know enough just based on earnings calls and Apple events where HomePod is barely mentioned. And who cares about the profit earned on a device that doesn’t sell very well. You can say it’s wrong to compare HomePod to cheaper ‘smart’ speakers but not really if the cheaper speakers are what people are buying. The market decides in the end. But if you’ve got data that shows HomePod is popular and selling well I’ll certainly look at it.
    Hmm yeah that’s exactly what Apple has done with the Mac — very, very small market share, very high revenue and profits. As Gruber said, profit is the air corporations breathe...not market share. 

    Same reason Jobs said he’d be happy with 1% market share when the iPhone launched. By your dim logic they would never have gotten into the market at all. 

    Don’t quit your day job, bro. 
    edited August 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,380member
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple ever intended to compete in this market so I find these articles ridiculous.
    So you think this is one of those one-off "fun" projects that was never intended on its own to be a competitive success? Serious question. You wouldn't be the first person to hold that opinion, tho Apple did go to a lot of effort in initially promoting it. 
    Revenue and profit is what determines a success to Apple, not market share. If the HP generates a satisfactory amount of profit from its revenue then it’s a success. Touting market share is just how the cheapies move the goal posts. 
    Not what I asked the OP, and I think he already answered me anyway. Your opinion on kinda related stuff is always welcome of course. 
  • Reply 28 of 30
    lmaclmac Posts: 204member
    Why is the HomePod a flop? Honestly i dont think its the price, though the high price hasnt helped. Apple watch is expensive but it has gained a following. I think it has more to do with the fact that Apple people value their privacy. Siri is the least accomplished of the digital assistants because Apple doesnt build a profile of you the way Amazon and Google do, so Siri has a harder job. Every request to Siri treats you like a stranger, whereas Google and Amazon already have a pretty good idea of your interests (and they arent ashamed to make a buck from that knowledge). Because Siri is handicapped, HomePod is not a great smart speaker, and because Apple people are tech savvy and dont like the idea of a device in their home that is always listening, the market is further reduced. I have the money but dont want any smart speaker in my home. I suspect Im not the only one.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 30
    cornchip said:
    gatorguy said:
    There's no evidence that Apple ever intended to compete in this market so I find these articles ridiculous.
    So you think this is one of those one-off "fun" projects that was never intended on its own to be a competitive success? Serious question. You wouldn't be the first person to hold that opinion, tho Apple did go to a lot of effort in initially promoting it. 

    Just guessing, but I think he might have meant Apple never intended to compete in the $50 end of the connected speaker market. I would agree. Just like Apple never intended to compete in the low-end computer, phone, tablet, ("smart") watch markets. While iPods did get fairly affordable over time, they were still more expensive than most competitors that arrived. As we all know, Apple mostly doesn't give a rip about market share but revenue per unit. Can they sell enough to recoup the cost of investment (including man hours) and then enough to invest in the next gen/variants? Then great. If not, it'll get axed.

    I have a feeling HP will slowly to catch on. I know I'm chomping at the bit for a couple, but financially, I'm a couple years out. And that's fine with me, I'd rather pay a fair price for something high-quality than fifty bucks for a piece of junk. But that's just me.

    PS I can totally see Apple going the iPhone route and continue selling the previous model when the new gen comes out. Boom there's your lower cost option.
    This is complete bullshit. Of course Apple cares about market share. You don’t have an ecosystem and can’t sell services on top of it if you don’t have market share. Apple sells millions of Macs, iPads and Apple Watches each quarter. Are you telling me the wouldn’t love it if they were selling millions of HomePods too? Tim Cook doesn’t even mention it on earnings calls. I think it’s pretty clear the product is a failure. Mostly because Apple went after what people weren’t asking for. People that want a smart speaker care about price more than audio quality and people who care about audio quality have something better than HomePod. If Apple really is focused on sound quality and not voice then why not make a really great sound bar or home theater system? I would never replace my sound bar with a HomePod but if Apple made a superior sound bar I just might.
    Tim Cook talks a lot about customer satisfaction as a KPI and they've changed their public reporting to remove unit sales for many products, so I think they're happy with having a large number of satisfied customers as opposed to a large number of customers for any given device. I think HomePod is, as Davgreg said, meant to be a key part of their HomeKit strategy. HomeKit is taking longer to build momentum than Apple would want, but they are patient so it will live on until they see clear evidence that it's failed.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.