According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
And they still need that cheaper model (although it's now down to $280 at Costco) if they want to improve sales per household. Lots of consumers want a voice controlled AI. It's bigger than the market of audiophiles. Now if I can get that with a high-end Homepod in my living room, that give me both. But what about the other rooms in my home? I think there's a good business case for a less expensive and less robust version of the product.
Too bad the HomePod is of no use to anyone outside the Apple ecosystem. Sonos provides a much better value and allows many more music services to be used. And it costs less and works with both Alexa and Google.
No it’s not too bad. The point of Apple creating these devices is to increase the investment and add value to their platforms and ecosystem. It should be obvious to EVERYONE, that Apple’s goal is not to be #1, which is why these statistics are absolutely worthless.
Sonos is a company that makes speakers for streaming audio... They DO NOT have sales and cannot survive as a company, unless they make that compatible with as many services and other devices as possible.
Apple clearly does not need to do that when they make a quarter of trillion dollars every year selling other things.
It is too bad for those that would like one but don't want anything else Apple. The fact that it doesn't even support Bluetooth streaming or a line-in makes it even more useless to anyone but a die-hard Apple fan. Locking it exclusively to the Apple ecosystem does not make it perform any better. The only thing this does is limit market share. Will the speaker perform worse by allowing Android access or access to other streaming services? I think not.
So what? Not sure why you're complaining about what it doesn't have - IT'S NOT FOR YOU. Apple is targeting a specific user; those that live in their ecosystem. They're not "suffering" by not reaching a wider audience. They're doing exactly as they intended. Some people may not like that, but there are other devices out there they can purchase and use.
Apple doesn't care what you think or what you want. They made the device they wanted to make. Period. I'm not being mean here, they make devices I would never buy or use either... But I don't complain about it. I JUST DON'T BUY IT!
If it fails to sell as they hoped, they can either make adjustments to possibly widen the appeal, or take it off the market altogether.
Too bad the HomePod is of no use to anyone outside the Apple ecosystem. Sonos provides a much better value and allows many more music services to be used. And it costs less and works with both Alexa and Google.
No it’s not too bad. The point of Apple creating these devices is to increase the investment and add value to their platforms and ecosystem. It should be obvious to EVERYONE, that Apple’s goal is not to be #1, which is why these statistics are absolutely worthless.
Sonos is a company that makes speakers for streaming audio... They DO NOT have sales and cannot survive as a company, unless they make that compatible with as many services and other devices as possible.
Apple clearly does not need to do that when they make a quarter of trillion dollars every year selling other things.
It is too bad for those that would like one but don't want anything else Apple. The fact that it doesn't even support Bluetooth streaming or a line-in makes it even more useless to anyone but a die-hard Apple fan. Locking it exclusively to the Apple ecosystem does not make it perform any better. The only thing this does is limit market share. Will the speaker perform worse by allowing Android access or access to other streaming services? I think not.
So what? Not sure why you're complaining about what it doesn't have - IT'S NOT FOR YOU. Apple is targeting a specific user; those that live in their ecosystem. They're not "suffering" by not reaching a wider audience. They're doing exactly as they intended. Some people may not like that, but there are other devices out there they can purchase and use.
Apple doesn't care what you think or what you want. They made the device they wanted to make. Period. I'm not being mean here, they make devices I would never buy or use either... But I don't complain about it. I JUST DON'T BUY IT!
If it fails to sell as they hoped, they can either make adjustments to possibly widen the appeal, or take it off the market altogether.
The bigger point is that clearly the HomePod isn't even the better choice for most Apple users. I have iPhones, Apple TV, Watches etc but went with Google Home Max and an assortment of their other speakers. Why? Not only because Siri is seriously behind but the Max sounds better at the same price, and Google offers different sizes and price points. I can still play music throughout the house but not every single speaker needs to be $300. It's a misstep when Apple users can find a better alternative elsewhere.
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
Apple does not chase marketshare. Why do people have so much difficulty understanding this? Marketshare in the tech world is achieved by selling low-end devices of marginal quality and razor-thin profit margins. That's not what Apple does, ever. HomePods sound great, and are a part of a (albeit slow-growing) more secure HomeKit home automation environment.
People trot this out whenever an Apple product has low market share. Then we get the profit share argument. But if HomePod was as successful as Apple Watch no one would be talking about market share vs profit share.
Yes, because it's true -- Apple's primary concern is, has been, likely always will be, profit share. That's what matters. As Gruber says, profit is the air corporations breathe. Market share is a secondary concern. It's far less important. But if Apple happens to get both, of course people will mention that.
How do you still now get how Apple works? It's profit, not worshiping at Church of Market Share.
Nope. It’s both. Come out with a product that will be profitable—and chase marketshare....in the category the product is in.
Chase marketshare in high end phones, not all phones.
chase marketshare for more expensive tablets, not all tablets.
same for computers, watches, air buds, Apple TV, etc.
apple chases marketshare with all those products. They just don’t chase every price level.
...if they had an audio focussed (only) option (iCloud free, SIRI-less, external audio in, frequency EQ only 'adjusting') I'd open my wallet, yet the potential privacy (ie. hack) and Apple dependencies on this have kept me at bay... Everything Apple releases now seems to require more data and more iCloud. No thanks. Could this potentially be Orwell's worst nightmare ?
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
Can we stop using the marketshare metric to demonstrate how a single product is doing in a market that contains devices that cover a wider range of uses and cost of investment? You can’t know how well a single device is doing without completely breaking down the market and showing percentages for all devices.
For instance it could be argued that a vast majority of people that purchase a HomePod, do so for the quality of sound reproduction and secondarily as a voice assistant. To know how well it is doing, you’d need to compare that with other devices purchased for the same reason.
Second using percentages does not reflect actual growth. Apple could have very well sold more units with a smaller percentage of marketshare. It’s very easy to inflate marketshare numbers by dumping inexpensive devices onto the market.
We can’t, really, because that’s a major metric. I know it’s not popular here, unless Apple is leading, but it doesn’t matter. Apple uses it too, so why shouldn’t we?
so the question is, what is a HomePod? Ism it primarily a sophisticated speaker system for iTunes? Is it primarily a way to have a bigger use for Siri?
if it’s as a speaker, then it’s a mistake. Most people don’t really care that much about that if it’s as a Siri device, then it’s too expensive, and doesn’t need the sound quality.
so the problem is what was Apple thinking? Maybe they weren’t sure of what the market would be. Or maybe they just couldn’t build something that wasn’t “better” than the competition.
but whether you like it or not, this is positioned against the other voice activated speakers out there. Not just a sound system. Apple is trying to get Siri back in the running, after they left it to rot for years, while Amazon and Google put a lot of effort into their later systems. Siri could have been well ahead, but Apple squandered their considerable lead.
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
Can we stop using the marketshare metric to demonstrate how a single product is doing in a market that contains devices that cover a wider range of uses and cost of investment? You can’t know how well a single device is doing without completely breaking down the market and showing percentages for all devices.
For instance it could be argued that a vast majority of people that purchase a HomePod, do so for the quality of sound reproduction and secondarily as a voice assistant. To know how well it is doing, you’d need to compare that with other devices purchased for the same reason.
Second using percentages does not reflect actual growth. Apple could have very well sold more units with a smaller percentage of marketshare. It’s very easy to inflate marketshare numbers by dumping inexpensive devices onto the market.
We can’t, really, because that’s a major metric. I know it’s not popular here, unless Apple is leading, but it doesn’t matter. Apple uses it too, so why shouldn’t we?
so the question is, what is a HomePod? Ism it primarily a sophisticated speaker system for iTunes? Is it primarily a way to have a bigger use for Siri?
if it’s as a speaker, then it’s a mistake. Most people don’t really care that much about that if it’s as a Siri device, then it’s too expensive, and doesn’t need the sound quality.
so the problem is what was Apple thinking? Maybe they weren’t sure of what the market would be. Or maybe they just couldn’t build something that wasn’t “better” than the competition.
but whether you like it or not, this is positioned against the other voice activated speakers out there. Not just a sound system. Apple is trying to get Siri back in the running, after they left it to rot for years, while Amazon and Google put a lot of effort into their later systems. Siri could have been well ahead, but Apple squandered their considerable lead.
Well argued Mell.
I thought there were stories about some internal pushback at Apple concerning the wisdom of rolling out a speaker like the HomePod before it was finally given a greenlight? I was under the impression the HomePod was intended as a test of the market from the get-go based on what I remember reading.
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
Apple has and never should be in the race to the bottom with pricing. It's not about market share with Apple. Why can you people just understand this. If Apple is making money off this whether its through HomePod sales and/or services sales then marketshare doesn't really matter to Apple.
Too bad the HomePod is of no use to anyone outside the Apple ecosystem. Sonos provides a much better value and allows many more music services to be used. And it costs less and works with both Alexa and Google.
How is that significantly different from anything else Apple sells? HomePod to me is a supplement to their services. It keeps you in the Apple ecosystem. It would be ZERO sense for Apple to make something that works for everything. Thats like making an iPhone that works with every internet service possible, every App Store, etc, etc.
So what? Not sure why you're complaining about what it doesn't have - IT'S NOT FOR YOU. Apple is targeting a specific user; those that live in their ecosystem. They're not "suffering" by not reaching a wider audience. They're doing exactly as they intended. Some people may not like that, but there are other devices out there they can purchase and use.
Apple doesn't care what you think or what you want. They made the device they wanted to make. Period. I'm not being mean here, they make devices I would never buy or use either... But I don't complain about it. I JUST DON'T BUY IT!
If it fails to sell as they hoped, they can either make adjustments to possibly widen the appeal, or take it off the market altogether.
Oh, I'm not complaining. I'm just stating facts that the HP has limited features and market share and there are better options out there. That's it. I could care less about Apple's reason for locking up what is, ultimately, just a speaker. Really, I don't care. Personally, I would never buy it...even if it was available on Android. I think it's too pricey and kinda ugly. It's even pricier since it requires another device just to use it if your not in the Apple bubble. Just my opinion.
I think the thing that most detractors are failing to notice in the article is that the HomePod is designed by a hardware company that was designed for people who want to buy speakers whereas the Google and Amazon products are simply loss leaders designed to drive services. It's pretty funny to see people here complain about the HomePod only being useful for people in the Apple eco-system when both Google and Amazon products are built to do nothing more than to bring people into their ecosystem.
Apple's competition is the Sonos and the article points out that they are outselling them even though they are recent in the market. Plus the added value they have with the HomePod is the voice assistant.
It also says a lot about the lack of technical knowledge that critics have when trying to compare the HomePod to other speakers simply based on the external shape. There is a huge amount of engineering inside the HomePod (using beam forming, bass management and digital signal processing) that maximizes the acoustical environment when there is just a single speaker. As the article points out, there is a huge misunderstanding of the how the speaker was designed to work when reviewers immediately trot out the need to buy 2 HomePods to get "stereo" when the speaker has mics and processing to adapt itself to produce its room filling acoustic environment.
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
How many Apple product launches had a high-end item paired with a much cheaper model? That isn't really how they do it. They start at the top and work their way down.
And in the consumer world, these days, that’s exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. People want cheap. They don’t see an advantage to something that’s more expensive. So you do what Amazon has done, and Google, and flood the market with something that affordable to most people. Then, once it’s established, you can go up market.
yeah, yeah, I know some people here will hate that idea. But I’ll bet they never had to make a real business decision of that type. I did.
So you're saying you know better what Apple "needs" to do and "should be" doing, despite the fact that is the most successful publicly traded company in human history. I find that difficult to come to terms with. I would argue that actually, no, that Apple does exactly what it needs to do -- goes after profit share, not market share, and then gradually works its way lower. See Macs, iPods, iPads, and iPhones. Their strategy works.
And yep, I too had to make similar business decisions in my own business, where I also produced a physical good which I sold in national retailers. Tho that doesn't make me qualified to out-manage Apple, which clearly has been killing it.
That argument is an old bit of nonsense. ‘So you think...” please, don't bother. Unless you can show that apple has made every decision perfectly, then your argument falls flat.
apples’ growth has stalled for several years. While some of that is out of their control, a lot is not. Some of their problems are pretty obvious. But there’s a culture in every company, and that restricts what they can do. I’m very curious as to what influence Ives had on overall product selection, and whether he had a say, major say, in price categorization. So if most in Apple wanted to come out with a $350 iPhone for India and other countries, did he say no? Will we see a change in some policies with him gone, and is that one reason he’s gone?
i had 85 people in my company, and decisions weren’t easy, as they affected everyone. The same thing is true for Apple. There are those pulling this way and that. Sometimes, we read, that some areas are a mess because not everyone agrees. The health division has seen a lot of turnover, so has the auto project. I’d love to know what’s going on there.
but to say that sometimes someone on the outside can’t see better than those on the inside is wrong. For many years, GE seemed to be fine, until it wasnt. It can happen anywhere.
I don't need to show Apple made every decision perfectly, because I've never claimed that. You just invented that and attributed it to me. What I claimed is, they're the most successfully managed public company in history, and have a proven track record of doing things correctly. Not chasing market share and going for profit share first and foremost is one of those things.
iPhone growth has slowed, but that is neither unexpected nor problematic. It was the most successful product in history, and everyone knew from the onset it could not last at that level forever. It was a once in a lifetime smash success. Meanwhile, Macs and other segments are generating more revenue than they had and growing.
There is no problem here. You're just peddling the same old, tired, DOOOM! narrative. Meanwhile, third-quarter revenue was a record. Viewing their revenue trend, you will see upward trajectory with normal "saw blade" shaped down-ticks followed by more revenue. This is not DOOM.
You don’t understand. I’m not saying they’re doomed. Why would you even think that? I also didn’t attribute to you the statement that Apple should be perfect for you to think that way. I do believe that it would be necessary though.
yes, Apple is ONE of the best managed companies around. In their time, others were too, but no longer are. That past and future history. Nothing continues forever.
that total revenue chart has nothing to do with what I’m saying at all, though it might make you feel better.
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
Wait until the Christmas holiday sales season. I saw the HomePod down to as low as $200 and many sales for $250. I think that is the only reason why HP looked like it was doing pretty good in the beginning of the year. Now without the massive price cuts it's sales have slowed at $300 per unit.
The “HomePod is a high-quality speaker” they way the Hyundai Elantra is a high quality sports sedan.
It sounds like a Wal-Mart Boom Box from back in the day and looks like a roll of toilet paper in fishnets.
The thing is unrepairable and repairs out of warranty are priced just below the cost of a new unit.
Flop.
Well, it does sound good for the market it’s intended for. Even Stereophile, a high end audio magazine said that it had the best sound among all the other voice active speaker systems. No, it doesn’t compare to my $150,000 A/V system, but it’s not supposed to.
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
Apple has and never should be in the race to the bottom with pricing. It's not about market share with Apple. Why can you people just understand this. If Apple is making money off this whether its through HomePod sales and/or services sales then marketshare doesn't really matter to Apple.
I can just as easily say; “Why don’t you people understand that when you come out with a product is has to be competitive with other products in that product area?”
you don’t even know whether apple is making money off this. Don’t pretend you do.
I think the thing that most detractors are failing to notice in the article is that the HomePod is designed by a hardware company that was designed for people who want to buy speakers whereas the Google and Amazon products are simply loss leaders designed to drive services. It's pretty funny to see people here complain about the HomePod only being useful for people in the Apple eco-system when both Google and Amazon products are built to do nothing more than to bring people into their ecosystem.
Apple's competition is the Sonos and the article points out that they are outselling them even though they are recent in the market. Plus the added value they have with the HomePod is the voice assistant.
It also says a lot about the lack of technical knowledge that critics have when trying to compare the HomePod to other speakers simply based on the external shape. There is a huge amount of engineering inside the HomePod (using beam forming, bass management and digital signal processing) that maximizes the acoustical environment when there is just a single speaker. As the article points out, there is a huge misunderstanding of the how the speaker was designed to work when reviewers immediately trot out the need to buy 2 HomePods to get "stereo" when the speaker has mics and processing to adapt itself to produce its room filling acoustic environment.
Well, I have two. There’s a big difference between having one, and having two. I’m speaking from experience. Yes, one can get fairly loud. It can fill a small room without a problem. But no matter what, it isn’t stereo. You still need two for that, as Apple themselves point out, and I can affirm.
As someone who has owned dozens of Apple products since his first Apple II (the one with the crappy gold power supply, even, and that needed the shift-key mod), and expects to buy many more, I still have to say: The HomePod, for me, is a piece of $hit. It adds so much negative value to my life that mine is unplugged and back in its box.
As a speaker, it's quite good. But I have a good stereo already and I didn't want or need to replace it. The HomePod went into my office to be a speaker for my Mac, for music, etc. And there, it's an incredible fiasco.
The worst part of it is that Siri is incredible: She hears everything and does nothing. For example, if I say "Siri, call my brother", my phone hears it... and then passes it to the damn HomePod, which tells me it can't make the call. That's just the worst stupidity ever. Someone actually decided to break things on purpose, to make that happen. Now originally, making calls was a "coming soon" feature. I didn't even want it, I was happy with my iPhone. But no, they screwed it all up. And then... they implemented the feature, but it's so buggy it can't figure out that my phone is on the same AppleID, and it *still* doesn't work... but it still steals the request from the iPhone.
And then, as I'm going out I like to say "hey siri, show me the weather". That language should make it obvious I want it on the screen, but no, the HomePod insists on fielding that one too. Again, exactly what I *don't* want. And of course if I add "on my phone" siri parses that... but ignores it (same for calls). Worst of all, if I do this in the living room, so far from my office I can't even hear the HomePod... sometimes it'll *still* take the request.
The Siri implementation, particularly its interaction with other Siris, is a massive failure. If I ran that project I'd fire the engineers responsible for that aspect of the product. And it completely overshadows all the good aspects of the product.
I'm sure that there are many people out there happy with their HomePod. Either because some bugs aren't affecting them, or their use cases are different enough from mine that they have a different experience. That's fine, and I'm glad they're happy. But the HomePod is very far from being another iPhone (or even another Apple Watch). It's massively flawed, and so far there's no indication that Apple even understands this.
Yep. Despite trying to wrap the HomePod in the glow of success of the AirPods and despite selectively quoting statistics of his choosing the HomePod is a failure when compared to great Apple products like the Watch and AirPods. I'm so glad that I bought into the Sonos system when the HP wasn't out at Christmas 2017. Never have a problem with stereo pairing with my ONEs. It would be interesting if Apple built out a Atmos based home theater system, but I'm not holding my breadth on that. But right now it looks like a disappointing me-too product.
According to the latest numbers, the HomePod has a 7% marketshare here in the US. That percentage has been shrinking, from a high that itself was pretty low. It’s well behind the market leaders.
i have two of them, so I’m not against it. It’s pretty good, for what it does. But realistically, it’s going nowhere. Apple needed to have a much cheaper model as well, when they first introduced this.
Apple does not chase marketshare. Why do people have so much difficulty understanding this? Marketshare in the tech world is achieved by selling low-end devices of marginal quality and razor-thin profit margins. That's not what Apple does, ever. HomePods sound great, and are a part of a (albeit slow-growing) more secure HomeKit home automation environment.
People trot this out whenever an Apple product has low market share. Then we get the profit share argument. But if HomePod was as successful as Apple Watch no one would be talking about market share vs profit share.
Yes, because it's true -- Apple's primary concern is, has been, likely always will be, profit share. That's what matters. As Gruber says, profit is the air corporations breathe. Market share is a secondary concern. It's far less important. But if Apple happens to get both, of course people will mention that.
How do you still now get how Apple works? It's profit, not worshiping at Church of Market Share.
Nope. It’s both. Come out with a product that will be profitable—and chase marketshare....in the category the product is in.
Chase marketshare in high end phones, not all phones.
chase marketshare for more expensive tablets, not all tablets.
same for computers, watches, air buds, Apple TV, etc.
apple chases marketshare with all those products. They just don’t chase every price level.
I think the main thing the HomePod does is lock in Apple Music users. That $10 /month adds up. That's why I expect them to sell a cheaper version at some point
Comments
So what? Not sure why you're complaining about what it doesn't have - IT'S NOT FOR YOU. Apple is targeting a specific user; those that live in their ecosystem. They're not "suffering" by not reaching a wider audience. They're doing exactly as they intended. Some people may not like that, but there are other devices out there they can purchase and use.
Apple doesn't care what you think or what you want. They made the device they wanted to make. Period. I'm not being mean here, they make devices I would never buy or use either... But I don't complain about it. I JUST DON'T BUY IT!
If it fails to sell as they hoped, they can either make adjustments to possibly widen the appeal, or take it off the market altogether.
It sounds like a Wal-Mart Boom Box from back in the day and looks like a roll of toilet paper in fishnets.
The thing is unrepairable and repairs out of warranty are priced just below the cost of a new unit.
Flop.
Chase marketshare in high end phones, not all phones.
chase marketshare for more expensive tablets, not all tablets.
same for computers, watches, air buds, Apple TV, etc.
apple chases marketshare with all those products. They just don’t chase every price level.
so the question is, what is a HomePod? Ism it primarily a sophisticated speaker system for iTunes? Is it primarily a way to have a bigger use for Siri?
if it’s as a speaker, then it’s a mistake. Most people don’t really care that much about that if it’s as a Siri device, then it’s too expensive, and doesn’t need the sound quality.
so the problem is what was Apple thinking? Maybe they weren’t sure of what the market would be. Or maybe they just couldn’t build something that wasn’t “better” than the competition.
but whether you like it or not, this is positioned against the other voice activated speakers out there. Not just a sound system. Apple is trying to get Siri back in the running, after they left it to rot for years, while Amazon and Google put a lot of effort into their later systems. Siri could have been well ahead, but Apple squandered their considerable lead.
I thought there were stories about some internal pushback at Apple concerning the wisdom of rolling out a speaker like the HomePod before it was finally given a greenlight? I was under the impression the HomePod was intended as a test of the market from the get-go based on what I remember reading.
Apple has and never should be in the race to the bottom with pricing. It's not about market share with Apple. Why can you people just understand this. If Apple is making money off this whether its through HomePod sales and/or services sales then marketshare doesn't really matter to Apple.
How is that significantly different from anything else Apple sells? HomePod to me is a supplement to their services. It keeps you in the Apple ecosystem. It would be ZERO sense for Apple to make something that works for everything. Thats like making an iPhone that works with every internet service possible, every App Store, etc, etc.
Apple's competition is the Sonos and the article points out that they are outselling them even though they are recent in the market. Plus the added value they have with the HomePod is the voice assistant.
It also says a lot about the lack of technical knowledge that critics have when trying to compare the HomePod to other speakers simply based on the external shape. There is a huge amount of engineering inside the HomePod (using beam forming, bass management and digital signal processing) that maximizes the acoustical environment when there is just a single speaker. As the article points out, there is a huge misunderstanding of the how the speaker was designed to work when reviewers immediately trot out the need to buy 2 HomePods to get "stereo" when the speaker has mics and processing to adapt itself to produce its room filling acoustic environment.
yes, Apple is ONE of the best managed companies around. In their time, others were too, but no longer are. That past and future history. Nothing continues forever.
that total revenue chart has nothing to do with what I’m saying at all, though it might make you feel better.
I can just as easily say; “Why don’t you people understand that when you come out with a product is has to be competitive with other products in that product area?”
you don’t even know whether apple is making money off this. Don’t pretend you do.
Well, I have two. There’s a big difference between having one, and having two. I’m speaking from experience. Yes, one can get fairly loud. It can fill a small room without a problem. But no matter what, it isn’t stereo. You still need two for that, as Apple themselves point out, and I can affirm.