rare comment

Other than remembering to say "hey siri" instead of "alexa" (which is not a trivial thing to remember), I suspect there isn't much of a network/incumbency effect for alexa.

I suspect this because, from what I've read and personally experienced, there hasn't been much take-up of the entrenching features of alexa and google home (smart home controls, connection with lists, etc.).  It appears that they are mostly used to set alarms, play music, etc.  Even music may not hook people too deeply in unless there are well-curated playlists as I understand that the libraries of each subscription service are roughly the same.  We are reasonably tech savvy (and, in fact, to try to understand the use cases of always-on listening, bought both an Echo and Google Home when they were each first released, as well as a dot when it was first released) but have not created an IFTTT workflow or enabled meaningful skills for either.  And, because needed, we created a dedicated google account for the Home but haven't really integrated calendars and similar.  We use both daily and heavily but almost exclusively for: radio, news, timers, alarms, and music (uploaded in the case of the Home; amazon prime in the case of Alexa).

That said, given that spending dollars are limited, purchased alexa devices have of coursed squeeze out some portion of homepod purchases.  But, if some large portion of those alexa buyers figured "I can take a risk on this as it is $30", maybe even that squeeze out is not so meaningful as we have a sharply different price point.

All of the above also means that homepod may not have much stickiness.  It will depend on how Apple handles iCloud accounts.  A home device ideally will work with multiple iCloud accounts which raises very difficult security and privacy issues.  How do I make sure that a reminder goes to MY reminders list and not my kid's?  How do I keep my notes or emails distinct from my kid's?  iMessages?  Very very tricky.

This is weird.  Some speculation:

- airplay 2 is harder to execute than expected (seems unlikely as it largely replicates what is available when streaming from the Mac to airplay speakers)
- there were unannounced surprise features (only think this as the announced features did not seem so groundbreaking)
- don't want to crowd out watch purchases for holiday (again, unlikely, as Apple seems fine with displacing its own products)

You'll note that I don't put much weight on any of my own speculations on the reason for the delay.  I am super disappointed as Google Home is the worst (we bought one to see how it compared to Echo).

dedgecko said:

suddenly newton said:

Trying AirPods at the Apple store convinced me they were Bluetooth done right.

Agreed, but I’m still hesitant to purchase them considering how much I sweat when working out. I’ve burned through three LG Tones, my Jlab Epic 1 didn’t last three months, and it’s replacment, Jlab Epic 2 has issues immediately outside of the one year warranty. That’s $250 in wireless headsets over a couple years.  I’m hoping version two of the AirPods ships with the Qi-compliant charging case in the near future. 

The charging case won't help you if you are worried about the AirPods being adversely affected by sweat.  The AirPods are the same, it's just that the case no longer needs the lightning cable.  So if the current AirPods are susceptible to damage by sweat, the Qi compatible case won't make a difference.

charlesatlas said:

Is there ever going to be an iPod Touch+? The iPhone has had the larger screen for years now. With the death of the iPad mini, there's no other small device without phone connectivity.

I don't think the iPad mini is dead (yet).  https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini-4/

But agree it seems to be on its way out for reasons I don't understand (it is the perfect size for a lot of use cases).

I think that the anti-fragility advantage lasts only as long as Apple is able to remain unique in its focus on customer satisfaction at profitable pricing (versus, for example, unit sales or advertising revenue). This advantage does NOT mean that Apple will permanently enjoy industry leading absolute profits but it does mean that it will be difficult for Apple to disappear (a la RIM or Nokia). A perfect example is iPad. So long as iPad users are happy and continue high engagement with their purchase, the business is fine. Of course it would be preferable if unit sales and revenues were increasing but, someday, those historic units will wear out or be insufficiently useful and, so long as those customers were happy for long enough, their next tablet purchase decision will be Apple's to lose. Again, given Apple's additional constraint of profitability, Apple may lose some of these customers because of pricing but that (including the related loss of overall profit) is tolerable given the advantages of a satisfied customer base. And marginal per unit profits are a worthwhile goal for a company that wants to survive (but not necessarily a great basis for investment where profits per share are really more relevant). On the comments noting that Apple is not a monopolist. The point is that Apple's level of profitability (especially relative to its nominal competitors) is reminiscent of the profitability of monopolists. And, although not a monopolist (in the sense of having some sort of external lever of control making it the only choice for customers), because of the high levels of satisfaction, Apple enjoys a customer set that likely does not even contemplate buying a non-iOS phone and thus Apple faces little true competition for its customers' interest. It's certainly a circular argument (Apple is a monopolist in iPhones) but I think the real point here is that iPhones and app-capable phones are not quite the same market.