Tech News
← Back to articles

Why the HomePod Touch could succeed where the original speaker failed

read original related products more articles

My colleague Ryan last week expressed concern that Apple’s upcoming HomePod Touch device might be making the same mistake as the original speaker.

But while I do suspect it may be something of a slow burn, I think the device will eventually achieve a much larger market even at the same price …

Ryan’s concern was that a recent Bloomberg report suggested Apple is targeting the same $350 price for the new device.

When Apple launched its first HomePod in 2018, it came with a whopping $349 price tag. In a recent Bloomberg report about the HomePod Touch, Mark Gurman writes “Apple has targeted a price of around $350 for the new device.” $350 sounds like the original HomePod launch all over again.

The original HomePod

That’s an understandable concern given the history. While Apple has never released any sales figures, it’s widely considered that the original HomePod failed to achieve the traction the company had hoped.

I argued some years ago that this is because the product was misunderstood by most Apple customers.

Yes, if you think of the HomePod as an IA device, it is too expensive and too large. But if you think of it as a highly sophisticated speaker system, using beam-forming technology that debuted in speakers costing five figures and only relatively recently made it into four-figure ones, then they are both impressively compact and surprisingly affordable. It’s time to stop comparing them to tinny speakers costing $50, and start thinking of them as really good audio kit at a never-before-seen price point.

It was mostly only the audio media that reported it for what it was: an incredible amount of speaker for the money. Add in the ability to stereo-pair two of them, and to create high-quality multi-room audio at a price never seen before, and it really was a phenomenally impressive product.

The problem for Apple is that demand for impressive speaker systems is way smaller than for its other products. It is this, rather than the product being overpriced, that was responsible for its relative failure.

... continue reading