"Why is HomePod so much more expensive than these other speakers you can talk to? Well, HomePod, I actually have reason to believe, Apple actually sells it at a loss," Gruber says.
Speaking non sequiturs. First sign of an idiot.
You must be new, son. Gruber is one of the best, most astute, and accurate Apple pundits and observers. There’s a reason he is quoted by the rumor sites.
That wasn't the point. Gruber made a comment that doesn't make any sense. "Why is the HomePod so expensive? Because it sells at a loss." As backstab said, it's a non sequitur.
The point is, they sell it at a loss already so they can't lower the price. Even if they're selling it close to a loss (break-even), it's why it's so expensive. Maybe eventually, the cost to build will go down as things normally do over time and Apple can lower the price of it.
Best Buy and other retail stores had the HomePod for $250 during Christmas. I imagine they must cost Apple less than that to make. Since they didn’t brag on it during the earnings call it’s probably their biggest flop since they 5C. But we Will probably have an editorial from DED that it’s the greatest smart speaker.
Revealing your ignorance again, I’m afraid. The 5C was not s flop — it was the second-best selling handset in US carrier stores. (You can guess what the first was)
...your troll trope talking points requiring updating. Please find the newest FUD packet under your chair.
The iPhone 5C was a flop. Sorry you cannot comprehend that. The iPhone 5S, a far better phone, sold 3x more units than the 5C. No one wanted a cheap iPhone 5 with a plastic back panel when the 5S was a far better and more durable phone. "Commentators viewed iPhone 5C as a flop because of supply chain cuts signifying a decline in demand in October 2013. Apple CEO Tim Cook admitted that the company overstocked the iPhone 5C while having shortages of the iPhone 5S, as a result of failing to anticipate the sales ratio between both phones." Tim Cook admitted that they screwed up with the 5C. After one year, Apple lowered the production of the 5C and cut the storage to only 8GB, then shortly afterwards, killed it off completely. If you think the 5C was so great, where is the 6C, 7C, 8C, XC? Oh yeah, Apple admitted the 5C was a flop and killed the idea of a cheap re-branded phone.
The technology in HomePod is indeed not appreciated by many. It’s in a class of its own at any price.
No. No it's not. Not even close. Not even in the same ball park as other offerings. So far behind you think it's first. Venture into a hifi shop and not your local dollar store - you will be amazed.
Bullshit. For $350, the mic array, beamforming, and 7 drivers in the HP toast the competition, even the more expensive shelf speakers.
No, it doesn't. It is an overpriced speaker in which you cannot even adjust the tone control. Even at clearance prices of $250, they could not clear them off store shelves. My $150 Polk Audio tower speakers sound 100x better than a HomePod, and I can play any source of music and adjust the bass, treble, and midrange through my receiver. Oh, and I did not need to spend $700 for stereo sound either. Don't forget how useless Siri is. You cannot even use Bluetooth on the HomePod because Apple disabled it. Keep blowing smoke to make yourself feel better for wasting money on a soon to be dead product. Remember the iPod Hi-Fi?
Another person talking out of their ass with nothing to back it up....You guys are a dime a dozen!
Sometimes Apple makes mistakes.
Im pretty sure I remember Tim Cook saying that Apple didn’t get the mix right between the 5C and the 5S.
Mr. Cook did say that the mix of 5S / 5C sales was different than they'd expected, with the 5S getting a larger share than had been expected. That would have been in Apple's Q1 FY2014 conference call.
But Mr. Cook also talked about the 5C being popular with first time iPhone buyers, with most (I don't recall the exact percentage, but we can find it if it matters) 5C sales coming from Android switchers. So I wouldn't call the 5C a flop. It served a valuable purpose and no doubt sold in large quantities even while the 5S outsold it.
"Why is HomePod so much more expensive than these other speakers you can talk to? Well, HomePod, I actually have reason to believe, Apple actually sells it at a loss," Gruber says.
Speaking non sequiturs. First sign of an idiot.
You must be new, son. Gruber is one of the best, most astute, and accurate Apple pundits and observers. There’s a reason he is quoted by the rumor sites.
That wasn't the point. Gruber made a comment that doesn't make any sense. "Why is the HomePod so expensive? Because it sells at a loss." As backstab said, it's a non sequitur.
You folks are focusing on relatively unimportant technicalities. Rather than arguing about the unknowable math to decide whether Gruber is technically correct in his “loss” comments, just consider the more basic case. It’s not a wild idea to think that HomePod and Apple TV are not profit centers for Apple, but are instead gateways to draw consumers into (or more fully into) Apple’s ecosystem. Profit or not, it’s quite possible that neither device has a lot of ‘mark up’ in the selling price. I would also imagine that a household populated with the things is much less likely to switch brands when it’s time to upgrade phones, tablets, notebooks or desktop computers.
HomePod buyers are highly likely to subscribe to Apple Music. ATV owners probably already buy or rent video content from Apple, and are likely good prospects for whatever video content service is currently under development. People who have bought into either or all that will likely continue to stick with those other devices that are widely known to generate profits for Apple.
It’s really not a stretch to make those arguments, is it?
It would't be a stretch to imagine another supplier selling loss-leaders to generate a market for services, but it's hard to imagine Apple doing that. Apple historically cuts anything that doesn't make enough money. Compact phones, large laptops, and computer displays are all examples of devices that could be described as attracting users to a sticky ecosystem, yet Apple dumped them because they didn't move in big enough numbers.
The technology in HomePod is indeed not appreciated by many. It’s in a class of its own at any price.
No. No it's not. Not even close. Not even in the same ball park as other offerings. So far behind you think it's first. Venture into a hifi shop and not your local dollar store - you will be amazed.
Bullshit. For $350, the mic array, beamforming, and 7 drivers in the HP toast the competition, even the more expensive shelf speakers.
No, it doesn't. It is an overpriced speaker in which you cannot even adjust the tone control. Even at clearance prices of $250, they could not clear them off store shelves. My $150 Polk Audio tower speakers sound 100x better than a HomePod, and I can play any source of music and adjust the bass, treble, and midrange through my receiver. Oh, and I did not need to spend $700 for stereo sound either. Don't forget how useless Siri is. You cannot even use Bluetooth on the HomePod because Apple disabled it. Keep blowing smoke to make yourself feel better for wasting money on a soon to be dead product. Remember the iPod Hi-Fi?
Whoa! A HUNDRED TIMES? Gee thats really good! Perhaps I should sell my six HP's!
We've given four as gifts, and everyone comments back to use how incredibly impressed they are with the sound. I use a stereo pair in my office and have not experienced that kind of sound from such a small tabletop footprint before. And I've owned a lot of AV gear (and still do)...
Is that a total of 10 homepods? Boy if you waited till Thanksgiving you would have saved $1,000 buying at Best Buy or any of the other sales going on.
I wish I could use my HomePods as a home entertainment sound system for my TV.
When the HomePod didn’t come out Thanksgiving-Christmas of 2017 I decided to try a Stereo Pair of Sonos ONEs. since then I’ve got a ONE for the bathroom , a Beam for the Television , and a Play5 for my computer. Love it and recommend it. HP is just too limited.
Best Buy and other retail stores had the HomePod for $250 during Christmas. I imagine they must cost Apple less than that to make. Since they didn’t brag on it during the earnings call it’s probably their biggest flop since they 5C. But we Will probably have an editorial from DED that it’s the greatest smart speaker.
Revealing your ignorance again, I’m afraid. The 5C was not s flop — it was the second-best selling handset in US carrier stores. (You can guess what the first was)
...your troll trope talking points requiring updating. Please find the newest FUD packet under your chair.
The iPhone 5C was a flop. Sorry you cannot comprehend that. The iPhone 5S, a far better phone, sold 3x more units than the 5C. No one wanted a cheap iPhone 5 with a plastic back panel when the 5S was a far better and more durable phone. "Commentators viewed iPhone 5C as a flop because of supply chain cuts signifying a decline in demand in October 2013. Apple CEO Tim Cook admitted that the company overstocked the iPhone 5C while having shortages of the iPhone 5S, as a result of failing to anticipate the sales ratio between both phones." Tim Cook admitted that they screwed up with the 5C. After one year, Apple lowered the production of the 5C and cut the storage to only 8GB, then shortly afterwards, killed it off completely. If you think the 5C was so great, where is the 6C, 7C, 8C, XC? Oh yeah, Apple admitted the 5C was a flop and killed the idea of a cheap re-branded phone.
The problem with the 5C was that Apple brought it out as the midterm offering between the 5S and 4S. People like me viewed it as a cheaper phone than the 4S at a higher price. They should have offered it as the lowest in their tiers and knocked another 100 off the price. Should do the same with the current iPhones
September 2019
iPhone X2 $1000 (double-lens camera), X2Max $1100 (triple lens camera) X2 Mini $900 (double camera lens, FaceID, smaller size but still premium)
iphone XR2 (based on the 4.7 in body, dual lens camera) $ 650 XR2Max (Same size as the XR body, dual lens camera) $750,
iPhone XR ($650, Face ID and single lens camera.
iPhone9C ( based on iPhone 8 size with touchid, single lens camera,poly carbonate body and 5 colors, no wireless charging, ) $350 IPhone 9Cplus ( based on iPhone 8 Plus size with touchid, polycarbonate body, and 5 colors, single lens camera, no Qi charging) $450 iPhone 9Cmini $300 (based on 4 inch screen from SE, polycarbonate body)
The C lineup would be manufactured in India. The polycarbonate would be used for the cheapest most inexpensive model so as not to cut into sales of higher models.
The technology in HomePod is indeed not appreciated by many. It’s in a class of its own at any price.
No. No it's not. Not even close. Not even in the same ball park as other offerings. So far behind you think it's first. Venture into a hifi shop and not your local dollar store - you will be amazed.
Bullshit. For $350, the mic array, beamforming, and 7 drivers in the HP toast the competition, even the more expensive shelf speakers.
No, it doesn't. It is an overpriced speaker in which you cannot even adjust the tone control. Even at clearance prices of $250, they could not clear them off store shelves. My $150 Polk Audio tower speakers sound 100x better than a HomePod, and I can play any source of music and adjust the bass, treble, and midrange through my receiver. Oh, and I did not need to spend $700 for stereo sound either. Don't forget how useless Siri is. You cannot even use Bluetooth on the HomePod because Apple disabled it. Keep blowing smoke to make yourself feel better for wasting money on a soon to be dead product. Remember the iPod Hi-Fi?
Feel better?
Comparing a tower speaker that requires at the minimum an integrated amp to the HomePod is bullshit; HomePod buyers aren't looking for anything but a shelf speaker that connects to their other Apple devices.
As well, HomePod requires 120V power (in the U.S.) and by definition, is not mobile, and hence no real need for bluetooth, since the assumption would be that WiFi would be ubiquitous.
I got my First HomePod over Christmas when they were selling for $249. I've been using it with my AppleTV downstairs for awhile now.
Acoustically speaking, it's good and probably better than my Bose SoundLink - that meaning it works with Siri (which SoundLink doesn't do), it plays very nicely througout the room - again, better than the SoundLink.
But, where it fails - is that once I mate it with the AppleTV, it plays the audio portion of my Netflix, Hulu, DirectTV Now, etc; but the audio is really not any better sounding than the sound my TV delivers by itself. In fact, one could argue that the voices in the TV/Movie are less distinct than what the cheap speakers in my TV deliver. Overall, this is NOT IMPRESSIVE for a $249 device.
But, what's the worst for me; is that I have to re-establish the link between the HomePod and AppleTV repeatedly. When I shut down for the night, the link between the AppleTV and the HomePod may, or may not be there when I wake the AppleTV back up. Because the sound quality between the HomePod and the regular TV are about the same (generally, pretty poor) - the only way to tell which audio source the AppleTV happened to pick, is to raise or lower the volume.
The HomePod is intelligent, I do not understand why there cannot be an audio profile for the AppleTV/HDTV link that would change the audio profile from music, to movie/tv. This seems like a very obvious programming hole.
"Why is HomePod so much more expensive than these other speakers you can talk to? Well, HomePod, I actually have reason to believe, Apple actually sells it at a loss," Gruber says.
Speaking non sequiturs. First sign of an idiot.
You must be new, son. Gruber is one of the best, most astute, and accurate Apple pundits and observers. There’s a reason he is quoted by the rumor sites.
That wasn't the point. Gruber made a comment that doesn't make any sense. "Why is the HomePod so expensive? Because it sells at a loss." As backstab said, it's a non sequitur.
You folks are focusing on relatively unimportant technicalities. Rather than arguing about the unknowable math to decide whether Gruber is technically correct in his “loss” comments, just consider the more basic case. It’s not a wild idea to think that HomePod and Apple TV are not profit centers for Apple, but are instead gateways to draw consumers into (or more fully into) Apple’s ecosystem. Profit or not, it’s quite possible that neither device has a lot of ‘mark up’ in the selling price. I would also imagine that a household populated with the things is much less likely to switch brands when it’s time to upgrade phones, tablets, notebooks or desktop computers.
HomePod buyers are highly likely to subscribe to Apple Music. ATV owners probably already buy or rent video content from Apple, and are likely good prospects for whatever video content service is currently under development. People who have bought into either or all that will likely continue to stick with those other devices that are widely known to generate profits for Apple.
It’s really not a stretch to make those arguments, is it?
It would't be a stretch to imagine another supplier selling loss-leaders to generate a market for services, but it's hard to imagine Apple doing that. Apple historically cuts anything that doesn't make enough money. Compact phones, large laptops, and computer displays are all examples of devices that could be described as attracting users to a sticky ecosystem, yet Apple dumped them because they didn't move in big enough numbers.
‘Compact’ phones and large laptops are just size preferences for existing Apple product lines. They still make phones and laptops. Computer monitors are basically interchangeable, so those would have no effect on getting users into the Apple ecosystem. HomePod and Apple TV are distinct product categories that are tightly linked with Apple’s content offerings. That relationship quite obviously serves to keep users in the Apple family, including buying and upgrading the other devices where Apple makes the most money.
Without those two devices, users would be far more likely to subscribe to music through Amazon or Google, whichever is most native to their smart speaker devices. They’d also be more likely to use those other companies’ smart home networks, and buy video content from Google or Amazon as well. If users are strongly linked into those other service families, not only do iPhones become less necessary for content options, they become non-native inconveniences.
So yeah, HomePod and Apple TV play an outsized role in keeping consumers in the Apple ecosystem, and are therefore less likely to need to be hardware profit centers in order to justify their continued existence.
I wish I could use my HomePods as a home entertainment sound system for my TV.
When the HomePod didn’t come out Thanksgiving-Christmas of 2017 I decided to try a Stereo Pair of Sonos ONEs. since then I’ve got a ONE for the bathroom , a Beam for the Television , and a Play5 for my computer. Love it and recommend it. HP is just too limited.
Funny, I just compaed a Sonos Beam to a HomePod in my living room, conducting many A:B blind tests with friends, and we concluded the HP sounded better. With music the sound was more vibrant as well as oomphy. In film, even dialog sounded better (which is what was touted for the Beam and why we tried it). The more-expensive Beam was returned.
Best Buy and other retail stores had the HomePod for $250 during Christmas. I imagine they must cost Apple less than that to make. Since they didn’t brag on it during the earnings call it’s probably their biggest flop since they 5C. But we Will probably have an editorial from DED that it’s the greatest smart speaker.
Revealing your ignorance again, I’m afraid. The 5C was not s flop — it was the second-best selling handset in US carrier stores. (You can guess what the first was)
...your troll trope talking points requiring updating. Please find the newest FUD packet under your chair.
The iPhone 5C was a flop. Sorry you cannot comprehend that. The iPhone 5S, a far better phone, sold 3x more units than the 5C. No one wanted a cheap iPhone 5 with a plastic back panel when the 5S was a far better and more durable phone. "Commentators viewed iPhone 5C as a flop because of supply chain cuts signifying a decline in demand in October 2013. Apple CEO Tim Cook admitted that the company overstocked the iPhone 5C while having shortages of the iPhone 5S, as a result of failing to anticipate the sales ratio between both phones." Tim Cook admitted that they screwed up with the 5C. After one year, Apple lowered the production of the 5C and cut the storage to only 8GB, then shortly afterwards, killed it off completely. If you think the 5C was so great, where is the 6C, 7C, 8C, XC? Oh yeah, Apple admitted the 5C was a flop and killed the idea of a cheap re-branded phone.
Incorrect. I never claimed the 5C sold more than the 5S. I claimed, and provided links to back it up, that the 5C sold well, which makes it not a flop. The links I provided confirm it was the second-best selling handset in US carrier stores, and did well abroad.
The X was discontinued after one year as well, yet we also know for fact that it was not a flop.
You provided no links or data to back up your claim that it was flop. None. Just admit it -- you're full of crap, have no data, and are passing off opinions as facts.
The technology in HomePod is indeed not appreciated by many. It’s in a class of its own at any price.
No. No it's not. Not even close. Not even in the same ball park as other offerings. So far behind you think it's first. Venture into a hifi shop and not your local dollar store - you will be amazed.
Bullshit. For $350, the mic array, beamforming, and 7 drivers in the HP toast the competition, even the more expensive shelf speakers.
No, it doesn't. It is an overpriced speaker in which you cannot even adjust the tone control. Even at clearance prices of $250, they could not clear them off store shelves. My $150 Polk Audio tower speakers sound 100x better than a HomePod, and I can play any source of music and adjust the bass, treble, and midrange through my receiver. Oh, and I did not need to spend $700 for stereo sound either. Don't forget how useless Siri is. You cannot even use Bluetooth on the HomePod because Apple disabled it. Keep blowing smoke to make yourself feel better for wasting money on a soon to be dead product. Remember the iPod Hi-Fi?
Feel better?
Comparing a tower speaker that requires at the minimum an integrated amp to the HomePod is bullshit; HomePod buyers aren't looking for anything but a shelf speaker that connects to their other Apple devices.
As well, HomePod requires 120V power (in the U.S.) and by definition, is not mobile, and hence no real need for bluetooth, since the assumption would be that WiFi would be ubiquitous.
Fuck off.
Did you notice he never answered my questions earlier in this thread about what receiver and how much it cost, or particular model of speaker? This is not about another perspective, it's just bad data. He is a loser troll and is now on the ignore list.
I wish I could use my HomePods as a home entertainment sound system for my TV.
When the HomePod didn’t come out Thanksgiving-Christmas of 2017 I decided to try a Stereo Pair of Sonos ONEs. since then I’ve got a ONE for the bathroom , a Beam for the Television , and a Play5 for my computer. Love it and recommend it. HP is just too limited.
Funny, I just compaed a Sonos Beam to a HomePod in my living room, conducting many A:B blind tests with friends, and we concluded the HP sounded better. With music the sound was more vibrant as well as oomphy. In film, even dialog sounded better (which is what was touted for the Beam and why we tried it). The more-expensive Beam was returned.
Talk to Hodor above. He made the mistake of buying the overHyped HP .
Best Buy and other retail stores had the HomePod for $250 during Christmas. I imagine they must cost Apple less than that to make. Since they didn’t brag on it during the earnings call it’s probably their biggest flop since they 5C. But we Will probably have an editorial from DED that it’s the greatest smart speaker.
Revealing your ignorance again, I’m afraid. The 5C was not s flop — it was the second-best selling handset in US carrier stores. (You can guess what the first was)
...your troll trope talking points requiring updating. Please find the newest FUD packet under your chair.
The iPhone 5C was a flop. Sorry you cannot comprehend that. The iPhone 5S, a far better phone, sold 3x more units than the 5C. No one wanted a cheap iPhone 5 with a plastic back panel when the 5S was a far better and more durable phone. "Commentators viewed iPhone 5C as a flop because of supply chain cuts signifying a decline in demand in October 2013. Apple CEO Tim Cook admitted that the company overstocked the iPhone 5C while having shortages of the iPhone 5S, as a result of failing to anticipate the sales ratio between both phones." Tim Cook admitted that they screwed up with the 5C. After one year, Apple lowered the production of the 5C and cut the storage to only 8GB, then shortly afterwards, killed it off completely. If you think the 5C was so great, where is the 6C, 7C, 8C, XC? Oh yeah, Apple admitted the 5C was a flop and killed the idea of a cheap re-branded phone.
Incorrect. I never claimed the 5C sold more than the 5S. I claimed, and provided links to back it up, that the 5C sold well, which makes it not a flop. The links I provided confirm it was the second-best selling handset in US carrier stores, and did well abroad.
The X was discontinued after one year as well, yet we also know for fact that it was not a flop.
You provided no links or data to back up your claim that it was flop. None. Just admit it -- you're full of crap, have no data, and are passing off opinions as facts.
You didn't notice that after we all started asking for links to back up his crap that they kinda shut up. It's easy to just say misc shit and leave. Much harder to back it up.
Tech Insights calculated that Apple makes about 29% margin on every HomePod.
That looks like totally inflated numbers. I don’t believe those numbers for a second.
No they don’t. True I don’t know bulk RAM prices, but for starters HomePod uses eight *custom* drivers (at least I’ve never heard of any with those exact specs) so the $58 might even be low. The HomePod again uses a *custom* processor that is much more advanced than any other smart speaker and is still used in the iPod Touch.
The problem with the HomePod is that reviewers who aren’t serious about audio are unsure of the value (although generally they liked the sound a lot) because they’ve never paid for even mid-level speakers and they mistakenly see the purpose as primarily a voice assistant. Reviewers who know audio better miss the point of the HomePod by treating it like any other speaker. They sit in a sweet spot and A/B the sound against other options. If I’m going to do that kind of listening I’m not going to use my HomePod either. I’ll stick with my Focals. The HomePod excels at casual listening, in untreated rooms, where people are moving around or not sticking to a “sweet spot”.
What would be Apple’s market share if you eliminated the Dot and similar options and included competition that at least pretended to be a serious speaker? How does the HomePod compare to Sonos? Or Bose? Those seem the more relevant comparisons. True, I did wish the HomePod would make a bigger splash but it is incredibly innovative and misunderstood.
*If* HomePods and AppleTVs are sold at a loss, then I suspect it is including development costs but not including service fees (Apple Music, iTunes, etc.) We’ll never know because Apple doesn’t break out sales by item anymore, much less margin by device. I do believe Apple could have a much, much tighter margin on these devices. They aren’t big sellers and so the slim margins wouldn’t thrown off their overal margins, which they do report. The logical difference between say AppleTV and AirPort Extreme (which did get the axe) is that AppleTV strengthens the services/digital deliverables. Airport and HiFi did at first but Apple felt they became irrelevant after the market caught up.
As a user who really like the HomePod and Apple TV I hope that bringing Apple Music to the Echo and Airplay to 3rd parties doesn’t mean Apple will begin phasing out these products. I think there is a lot of value still offered (or could be offered) by both. While I’m not a gamer, I think the next AppleTV should use an A12 variant and really go after the console market with some Apple exclusive games. If the Apple TV can make become a viable gaming platform other devs will follow.
[...] If the Apple TV can make become a viable gaming platform other devs will follow.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for the TV to get better. There doesn't seem to be any clear vision of what Apple wants it to be. It comes across as something that's being developed by a bunch of engineers in a room with no direction or guidance.
When Apple can't even make TV/movie viewing consistent and reliable, even after years of experience on that side of things, I'm not confident it can achieve the more difficult task of creating a gaming platform that will be compelling to developers.
This is complete and utter fantasy. Apple did not become the multi-billion dollar company they are today by selling products at or below cost. Employees get a small discount and if these items were sold at or below cost there would be no discount at all. When the HomePod was first released, Apple Employees got a 50% discount for I think 90 days or something like that. If they were selling the HomePod below cost, there’s NO WAY the 50% discount would have been offered. This guy is making this crap up on the fly.
Comments
The point is, they sell it at a loss already so they can't lower the price. Even if they're selling it close to a loss (break-even), it's why it's so expensive. Maybe eventually, the cost to build will go down as things normally do over time and Apple can lower the price of it.
But Mr. Cook also talked about the 5C being popular with first time iPhone buyers, with most (I don't recall the exact percentage, but we can find it if it matters) 5C sales coming from Android switchers. So I wouldn't call the 5C a flop. It served a valuable purpose and no doubt sold in large quantities even while the 5S outsold it.
September 2019
iPhone X2 $1000 (double-lens camera),
X2Max $1100 (triple lens camera)
X2 Mini $900 (double camera lens, FaceID, smaller size but still premium)
iphone XR2 (based on the 4.7 in body, dual lens camera) $ 650
XR2Max (Same size as the XR body, dual lens camera) $750,
iPhone XR ($650, Face ID and single lens camera.
iPhone9C ( based on iPhone 8 size with touchid, single lens camera,poly carbonate body
and 5 colors, no wireless charging, ) $350
IPhone 9Cplus ( based on iPhone 8 Plus size with touchid, polycarbonate body,
and 5 colors, single lens camera, no Qi charging) $450
iPhone 9Cmini $300 (based on 4 inch screen from SE, polycarbonate body)
The C lineup would be manufactured in India.
The polycarbonate would be used for the cheapest most inexpensive model so as not to
cut into sales of higher models.
Comparing a tower speaker that requires at the minimum an integrated amp to the HomePod is bullshit; HomePod buyers aren't looking for anything but a shelf speaker that connects to their other Apple devices.
As well, HomePod requires 120V power (in the U.S.) and by definition, is not mobile, and hence no real need for bluetooth, since the assumption would be that WiFi would be ubiquitous.
Fuck off.
Without those two devices, users would be far more likely to subscribe to music through Amazon or Google, whichever is most native to their smart speaker devices. They’d also be more likely to use those other companies’ smart home networks, and buy video content from Google or Amazon as well. If users are strongly linked into those other service families, not only do iPhones become less necessary for content options, they become non-native inconveniences.
So yeah, HomePod and Apple TV play an outsized role in keeping consumers in the Apple ecosystem, and are therefore less likely to need to be hardware profit centers in order to justify their continued existence.
The X was discontinued after one year as well, yet we also know for fact that it was not a flop.
You provided no links or data to back up your claim that it was flop. None. Just admit it -- you're full of crap, have no data, and are passing off opinions as facts.
The problem with the HomePod is that reviewers who aren’t serious about audio are unsure of the value (although generally they liked the sound a lot) because they’ve never paid for even mid-level speakers and they mistakenly see the purpose as primarily a voice assistant. Reviewers who know audio better miss the point of the HomePod by treating it like any other speaker. They sit in a sweet spot and A/B the sound against other options. If I’m going to do that kind of listening I’m not going to use my HomePod either. I’ll stick with my Focals. The HomePod excels at casual listening, in untreated rooms, where people are moving around or not sticking to a “sweet spot”.
What would be Apple’s market share if you eliminated the Dot and similar options and included competition that at least pretended to be a serious speaker? How does the HomePod compare to Sonos? Or Bose? Those seem the more relevant comparisons. True, I did wish the HomePod would make a bigger splash but it is incredibly innovative and misunderstood.
As a user who really like the HomePod and Apple TV I hope that bringing Apple Music to the Echo and Airplay to 3rd parties doesn’t mean Apple will begin phasing out these products. I think there is a lot of value still offered (or could be offered) by both. While I’m not a gamer, I think the next AppleTV should use an A12 variant and really go after the console market with some Apple exclusive games. If the Apple TV can make become a viable gaming platform other devs will follow.
When Apple can't even make TV/movie viewing consistent and reliable, even after years of experience on that side of things, I'm not confident it can achieve the more difficult task of creating a gaming platform that will be compelling to developers.