Should have sold it in pairs as an AppleTV accessory, rather than as single speakers. Anyone who cares about sound wants stereo, and the ability to use two as stereo pair and in conjunction with an AppleTV was utterly under communicated.
I think that was an afterthought/accident and Apple didn't anticipate how popular they'd be for that. I doubt we'll see another large HomePod but I'm wondering if we'll see an Apple TV/Soundbar combo with HomePod tech built-in.
The HomePod was not overpriced. Many high end audio companies sell HomePod-type portable speakers with price tags that leave HomePod in the dust. And I'm sure HomePod sales leaves them in the dust. So why do those speakers continue to be manufactured while HomePod is EOL? Simple. When a company is the size of Apple, a consumer product like the HomePod has to sell in huge volumes that justify its existence in the product line. Another way of saying it: the HomePod likely sold in enough volume to make it a hit at most companies. Just not at Apple. For this reason, I think the question about the future of AirPods Max is a valid one. Top Apple analyst Kuo sees them selling less than a million units this year and accounting for only 1% of AirPods shipments.
Now that I've owned APM for a while, I also find them an odd fit in the Apple "wearables" category. Their weight makes them much less than ideal as go-to headphones for use outside the house. Plus, their unmistakable appearance and well-publicized high price tag are like putting a sign that screams "Steal Me!" on your head. For these reasons, I'm finding that I only listen to my APM at home.
Definitely agree w/ point one.
As for point two -- I kinda figured they were designed for home listening. The way my audio friends have a "listening room" and fancy headphones, only wireless.
As a HomePod die-hard, I will say the big difference is that HomePod never sold out. The Airpods Max were impossible to buy at almost any price for weeks—some colors are still backordered. So even if high demand doesn't continue, there is a bigger market than Apple expected and that's a good sign.
I'm not an audiophile but as someone who works in (or adjacent to) the audio field, neither product is outrageously priced—if you compare them to other audio-first offerings. Those markets are very niche—too niche in the case of OG HomePod which sold well for a wireless speaker but terrible for an Apple Product. The Max will sell well because consumers will justify the fashion statement as long as the Max is better than all (or most) other ANC, wireless, over-the-ear headphones.
Honestly the HomePod was too new, too innovative. It solved a problem no one knew they had, even after it was gone. The Max are a shade above mediocre. They won't be a home run, but they'll be a consistent base hit for the foreseeable future.
The HP was sold out at launch. I recall I had to wait a couple weeks for my first one.
I had six HomePods but two were used on their own: one grey, one white. So I just bought one each grey (one of the last) and white (from Apple) and now have four pairs. They sound better than 2x when used in stereo. They are wonderful. I consider myself the lucky recipient of Apple's incredible R&D. I also have an AirPod Max. Wonderful. Thank you, Apple team, for both!
The AirPods Max are simply the BEST headphones I have ever used at any price!
I am an experienced audio person and have been listening to music on headphones for over 20 years and currently have 8 different headsets ranging up to $4,000 in price.
The sound quality and build quality of the AirPods Max is only just matched by the most expensive headphones on the market costing orders of magnitude more.
The additional versatility of the AirPods Max that can be used with any Bluetooth device coupled with the additional Apple ecosystem features make it a must buy for anyone who takes music listening seriously !!
Really, $549 USD for the AirPods Max is a no brainer !
I paid $899 AUD for the AirPods Max here in Australia and am really looking forward to the next updated version.
PS. I have also HomePods x 2. I used HomePods next to a $10K+ speaker set up and they performed reasonably well. The HomePods obviously did not have the deep down punch of the expensive speakers, but their high frequency spatial sound was just great.
My overwhelming criticism of the HomePods is their lack of connectivity with anything outside of the Apple ecosystem !!! For that they deserve their fate.
BUT the AirPods Max do not suffer that constraint, and can be connected to anything by Bluetooth and even by a direct cable.
If you think $549 is expensive for the AirPods Max, you really do not know what you are buying.
PS. I have also HomePods x 2. I used HomePods next to a $10K+ speaker set up and they performed reasonably well. The HomePods obviously did not have the deep down punch of the expensive speakers, but their high frequency spatial sound was just great.
My overwhelming criticism of the HomePods is their lack of connectivity with anything outside of the Apple ecosystem !!! For that they deserve their fate.
BUT the AirPods Max do not suffer that constraint, and can be connected to anything by Bluetooth and even by a direct cable.
If you think $549 is expensive for the AirPods Max, you really do not know what you are buying.
This is what held me back (plus the initial price). I'm all for added features only accessible when you're in the ecosystem (I do have a bunch of Apple stuff), but an analog input or HDMI/ARC connection to let me connect to my older TV, or letting a Windows laptop or a friends non-Apple phone connect via Bluetooth would have been nice. It's not like Apple doesn't understand versatility--like their headphones, there are other examples of Apple hardware (and software) being able to interface with the world at large.
If Apple were to integrate the HomePod and the AppleTV , adding console gaming capabilities for a similar price point as HP or as Sony/Microsoft but with a really great sound too; that would sell (If they have the AAA games for it). AppleTV Max
I'm very optimistic about the HP Max from a product survival perspective.
They are a peripheral in the true sense of the word and probably have a high markup and plenty of room for market price adjustments.
The question about if they will meet the same fate as the HomePod is valid though even if I personally don't think that will happen.
Whatever happens, they will serve users well (those that think they are worth the asking price). Headphones are self contained by definition too and that helps a lot. You have a music source and then everything is secondary but already mature across the market (call management and quality, transparency mode etc)
The HomePod isn't a peripheral in exactly the same way and provides other potential challenges as it isn't as self contained. In a way it is also a type of household hub which has to operate in a multi person/device setting. It is also hampered to a greater degree in terms of what you can get into it and how. IMO a wired option on the Max (although I think the cable should be in the box) is a very wise decision.
As the HomePod mini gains traction and deeper integration with other devices in a household setting, I wonder if the original HomePod may fit in less 'seamlessly' down the line.
I think it would also be correct to think that a section of HomePod purchasers hoped for better integration (especially with Siri updates) throughout the product's life.
PS. I have also HomePods x 2. I used HomePods next to a $10K+ speaker set up and they performed reasonably well. The HomePods obviously did not have the deep down punch of the expensive speakers, but their high frequency spatial sound was just great.
My overwhelming criticism of the HomePods is their lack of connectivity with anything outside of the Apple ecosystem !!! For that they deserve their fate.
BUT the AirPods Max do not suffer that constraint, and can be connected to anything by Bluetooth and even by a direct cable.
If you think $549 is expensive for the AirPods Max, you really do not know what you are buying.
+1. The connectivity options (or lack thereof) for the HomePod nixed it for me, as I wanted it to be a general speaker for my Mac Mini (for all audio, not just the Music app). It's basically an Apple Music device, not a general purpose speaker.
I'm much more inclined to get the APM as it has multiple connectivity options (once the price goes down a bit).
As a HomePod die-hard, I will say the big difference is that HomePod never sold out. The Airpods Max were impossible to buy at almost any price for weeks—some colors are still backordered. So even if high demand doesn't continue, there is a bigger market than Apple expected and that's a good sign.
I'm not an audiophile but as someone who works in (or adjacent to) the audio field, neither product is outrageously priced—if you compare them to other audio-first offerings. Those markets are very niche—too niche in the case of OG HomePod which sold well for a wireless speaker but terrible for an Apple Product. The Max will sell well because consumers will justify the fashion statement as long as the Max is better than all (or most) other ANC, wireless, over-the-ear headphones.
Honestly the HomePod was too new, too innovative. It solved a problem no one knew they had, even after it was gone. The Max are a shade above mediocre. They won't be a home run, but they'll be a consistent base hit for the foreseeable future.
What about HomePod was too new and innovative? It was a pretty good speaker with a voice assistant built in. It didn't support Bluetooth or line-in audio nor did it play well with music services other than Apple Music. Siri is OK and plays well with the rest of the Apple ecosystem, but she was innovative 10 years ago with the iPhone 4S. By many measures, she now lags behind her competitors in the voice assistant space.
I think the reality is that it solved a problem that most people don't have. As a society, we have moved towards listening to music using earphones/headphones. We don't value high quality audio in the home. Even in the car, most people stick with base level speakers made of cardboard.
The HomePod doesn't suit me because I'm wedded to Spotify and my heating is powered by Nest so it doesn't work with HomeKit. But it was clearly popular for people whose circumstances are different - I've seen some articles showing that the HomePod sold in the low millions - so it's disappointing to see that it was discontinued because those sales figures for the market HomePod was playing in (good quality all-in-one speakers) sound quite decent.
The HomePod didn’t have to be overpriced, at least from an acquisition standpoint, for consumers.
I think it would be a safe bet to say that Amazon loses money on most of its Echo device sales, especially when you factor in the non recurring R&D costs of not just the devices but the backend services like Alexa. Heck, they probably lose money on the build bill of material cost of some of the Echo devices.
The big difference between Amazon and Apple when it comes to devices is that Amazon is willing to lose money on the device sale and recover the money by pulling through more revenue on services and commissions in other parts of their ecosystem.
I cannot think of an example off the top of my head where Apple plays off or subsidizes one side of the overall equation to pull through more on another side. I could be missing something, but it sure seems like Apple tries to maximize the profit on every individual item in relative isolation. Even Apple’s trial memberships, back to school bonuses, Black Friday markdowns, etc., are always somewhat anemic compared to other product companies. They don’t like giving anything away.
If Apple had targeted the price if the HomePod lower, say $199, with some bundling hooks to encourage more Apple Music subscriptions they may have gotten more uptake. They also could have offered other HomePod-exclusive benefits like higher bit rates for Apple Music streamed through HomePod, early access to new music releases, conference room teleconferencing (conference call) speaker feature with linked service, etc.
The HomePod didn’t have to be overpriced, at least from an acquisition standpoint, for consumers.
I think it would be a safe bet to say that Amazon loses money on most of its Echo device sales, especially when you factor in the non recurring R&D costs of not just the devices but the backend services like Alexa. Heck, they probably lose money on the build bill of material cost of some of the Echo devices.
The big difference between Amazon and Apple when it comes to devices is that Amazon is willing to lose money on the device sale and recover the money by pulling through more revenue on services and commissions in other parts of their ecosystem.
I cannot think of an example off the top of my head where Apple plays off or subsidizes one side of the overall equation to pull through more on another side. I could be missing something, but it sure seems like Apple tries to maximize the profit on every individual item in relative isolation. Even Apple’s trial memberships, back to school bonuses, Black Friday markdowns, etc., are always somewhat anemic compared to other product companies. They don’t like giving anything away.
If Apple had targeted the price if the HomePod lower, say $199, with some bundling hooks to encourage more Apple Music subscriptions they may have gotten more uptake. They also could have offered other HomePod-exclusive benefits like higher bit rates for Apple Music streamed through HomePod, early access to new music releases, conference room teleconferencing (conference call) speaker feature with linked service, etc.
Very true!
And it may go much further: How much information do Amazon & Google gather about you and your family from those devices? Information that they can and do monetize. So, looked at one way, people are paying to plant a spy in their house. Or, looked at another way: they get a discount on the price to allow Amazon or Google to spy on them.
However, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Apple never " plays off or subsidizes one side of the overall equation to pull through more on another side". It started with the iPod and iTunes where both were symbiotic beneficiaries of the other. And they continue that even today on a much broader scale where every Apple device ties into every other device (iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac, Apple TV, HomePod, etc.) to the point where the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
Did Apple ever declare the original Apple Watch Edition that went for $14k in gold as "end of life?" Wonder how many of those are still in service.
It went end of life with the series zero.
I'm not sure which is worse, a person who will buy a $14,000 commodity item, or a company that considers a $14,000 watch unsupportable. My guess is Apple would still work with the buyer in some way, regardless of any "end of life" statement for the series zero in general.
Comments
I think that was an afterthought/accident and Apple didn't anticipate how popular they'd be for that. I doubt we'll see another large HomePod but I'm wondering if we'll see an Apple TV/Soundbar combo with HomePod tech built-in.
It was underappreciated because it costed too much for its value. So basically there is no difference between the 2 terms
Definitely agree w/ point one.
As for point two -- I kinda figured they were designed for home listening. The way my audio friends have a "listening room" and fancy headphones, only wireless.
The HP was sold out at launch. I recall I had to wait a couple weeks for my first one.
I am an experienced audio person and have been listening to music on headphones for over 20 years and currently have 8 different headsets ranging up to $4,000 in price.
The sound quality and build quality of the AirPods Max is only just matched by the most expensive headphones on the market costing orders of magnitude more.
The additional versatility of the AirPods Max that can be used with any Bluetooth device coupled with the additional Apple ecosystem features make it a must buy for anyone who takes music listening seriously !!
Really, $549 USD for the AirPods Max is a no brainer !
I paid $899 AUD for the AirPods Max here in Australia and am really looking forward to the next updated version.
My overwhelming criticism of the HomePods is their lack of connectivity with anything outside of the Apple ecosystem !!! For that they deserve their fate.
BUT the AirPods Max do not suffer that constraint, and can be connected to anything by Bluetooth and even by a direct cable.
If you think $549 is expensive for the AirPods Max, you really do not know what you are buying.
If Apple were to integrate the HomePod and the AppleTV , adding console gaming capabilities for a similar price point as HP or as Sony/Microsoft but with a really great sound too; that would sell (If they have the AAA games for it). AppleTV Max
They are a peripheral in the true sense of the word and probably have a high markup and plenty of room for market price adjustments.
The question about if they will meet the same fate as the HomePod is valid though even if I personally don't think that will happen.
Whatever happens, they will serve users well (those that think they are worth the asking price). Headphones are self contained by definition too and that helps a lot. You have a music source and then everything is secondary but already mature across the market (call management and quality, transparency mode etc)
The HomePod isn't a peripheral in exactly the same way and provides other potential challenges as it isn't as self contained. In a way it is also a type of household hub which has to operate in a multi person/device setting. It is also hampered to a greater degree in terms of what you can get into it and how. IMO a wired option on the Max (although I think the cable should be in the box) is a very wise decision.
As the HomePod mini gains traction and deeper integration with other devices in a household setting, I wonder if the original HomePod may fit in less 'seamlessly' down the line.
I think it would also be correct to think that a section of HomePod purchasers hoped for better integration (especially with Siri updates) throughout the product's life.
I think the reality is that it solved a problem that most people don't have. As a society, we have moved towards listening to music using earphones/headphones. We don't value high quality audio in the home. Even in the car, most people stick with base level speakers made of cardboard.
The HomePod doesn't suit me because I'm wedded to Spotify and my heating is powered by Nest so it doesn't work with HomeKit. But it was clearly popular for people whose circumstances are different - I've seen some articles showing that the HomePod sold in the low millions - so it's disappointing to see that it was discontinued because those sales figures for the market HomePod was playing in (good quality all-in-one speakers) sound quite decent.
The big difference between Amazon and Apple when it comes to devices is that Amazon is willing to lose money on the device sale and recover the money by pulling through more revenue on services and commissions in other parts of their ecosystem.
Very true!