Google Home vs. Echo
When I was talking about HomePod vs. the competition, I basically stated that Google Home was the only real competition.
My basis was simple; Google has a more compelling ecosystem and consumer story.
For me though, the proof was in how quickly 3rd parties came to Google Home. Especially since the launch of the Mini. Echo may lay claim to more integrations for the moment, but Google already has more momentum.
I mean, it was kind of inevitable. Technically speaking, near every Android device has Google Assistant which is what delivers the smarts to the Home lineup. So, if you consider those as a part of that competition, then Amazon was already beat the second Google announced it was in the same market. In fact, if anything, Echo serves as a reminder that you probably already have a device which can perform the same tasks in your pocket.
Google doesn't just have more phones either. They have more 1st party services. More 1st party devices. And more developers.
So why am I writing this article now? Because of this other article. Look at that explosive rate of growth in December! That is some insane momentum. In less than a year. Versus an established product with over a years head start. Google Home, at this rate, will surpass Echo before the end of 2018.
The article also makes two more salient points. Most of those sales were driven by discounts and the bulk of the sales for both companies were for the Dot and Mini. This is a little off topic, but it ties in with my prior argument against the HomePod. It isn't the most expensive models moving units. And while the cheaper models may be driving the charge I also agree with both Google and Amazon for starting with a mid-range device.
Firstly, when both debuted, they weren't the mid-range devices, they were the only offering and they would have been seen as "affordably premium" if I were to try and articulate it. Costly enough that most wouldn't impulse buy them, but not so expensive as to bar the interested from accessing them. It is a way to test the waters. A way to build up a better more stable experience. But, one which can ultimately generate some revenue in a decent timeline.
Once the foundation is laid, then you begin the major assault by unveiling the low cost, mainstream option. This option build on what you learned and takes some shortcuts to reduce the price and make the products a fixture in people's homes.
Then, once you've infiltrated in a decent manner and made a name for yourself... THEN you sell a big ass premium speaker. And you STILL don't expect to move anywhere near the volume of the other two models.
Anyway, this article isn't about Apple necessarily. It is more about why I think Echo is doomed. And in addition to a lacking ecosystem, I feel they screwed up on step 3, the premium offering. Firstly, cost wise the Echo Plus is close enough to the standard Echo that people who feel driven to the Plus will ultimately still consider the standard device. It doesn't look markedly bigger or more impressive for audiophiles. The integrated smart hub plays up their strengths but doesn't really deliver anything of true value. I feel like the cost vs. value will just drive more people to the standard Echo.
But, that isn't the only way they messed up in my opinion. The Echo Show came out at the same time. It is even more expensive than the Plus, but lacks the Hub functionality and is even less good as an audio device. Sure, it adds something else to the package. But that really just complicates things further. And guess what? Google gets an array of devices with screens "for free". At CES a bunch of partners announced that they would be creating Google Assistant devices with touch screens. Google gets multiple entrants without muddying their own lineup with products at confusing price points.
I STILL think EVERYONE is going about it wrong. I have nothing wrong with these "atomic" devices which are complete in and of themselves. But the real path to ubiquity would be a range of devices that augmented existing products people owned. Google already sort of has that in the form of its Chromecast lineup. But, now they need Chromecast devices with mic arrays, or even just standalone mic arrays. And perhaps a way to allow the video related Chromecasts to work with touch screens. All of a sudden ANY device with a speaker could become a "fully fledged" Google Home device and any device with a touchscreen and speakers can be a full touch equivalent.
I know, I repeat this way too much. So I'll stop. Short story, Google's momentum in this sphere is staggering. I wish they were willing to be more proactive than reactive in this space. But, even without that, their ecosystem is just a better vehicle for this. Amazon can't easily change that. Apple could be a competitor in the same way they compete in phones (bigger margins but fewer sales) but even they seem hell bent on screwing it up.
My basis was simple; Google has a more compelling ecosystem and consumer story.
For me though, the proof was in how quickly 3rd parties came to Google Home. Especially since the launch of the Mini. Echo may lay claim to more integrations for the moment, but Google already has more momentum.
I mean, it was kind of inevitable. Technically speaking, near every Android device has Google Assistant which is what delivers the smarts to the Home lineup. So, if you consider those as a part of that competition, then Amazon was already beat the second Google announced it was in the same market. In fact, if anything, Echo serves as a reminder that you probably already have a device which can perform the same tasks in your pocket.
Google doesn't just have more phones either. They have more 1st party services. More 1st party devices. And more developers.
So why am I writing this article now? Because of this other article. Look at that explosive rate of growth in December! That is some insane momentum. In less than a year. Versus an established product with over a years head start. Google Home, at this rate, will surpass Echo before the end of 2018.
The article also makes two more salient points. Most of those sales were driven by discounts and the bulk of the sales for both companies were for the Dot and Mini. This is a little off topic, but it ties in with my prior argument against the HomePod. It isn't the most expensive models moving units. And while the cheaper models may be driving the charge I also agree with both Google and Amazon for starting with a mid-range device.
Firstly, when both debuted, they weren't the mid-range devices, they were the only offering and they would have been seen as "affordably premium" if I were to try and articulate it. Costly enough that most wouldn't impulse buy them, but not so expensive as to bar the interested from accessing them. It is a way to test the waters. A way to build up a better more stable experience. But, one which can ultimately generate some revenue in a decent timeline.
Once the foundation is laid, then you begin the major assault by unveiling the low cost, mainstream option. This option build on what you learned and takes some shortcuts to reduce the price and make the products a fixture in people's homes.
Then, once you've infiltrated in a decent manner and made a name for yourself... THEN you sell a big ass premium speaker. And you STILL don't expect to move anywhere near the volume of the other two models.
Anyway, this article isn't about Apple necessarily. It is more about why I think Echo is doomed. And in addition to a lacking ecosystem, I feel they screwed up on step 3, the premium offering. Firstly, cost wise the Echo Plus is close enough to the standard Echo that people who feel driven to the Plus will ultimately still consider the standard device. It doesn't look markedly bigger or more impressive for audiophiles. The integrated smart hub plays up their strengths but doesn't really deliver anything of true value. I feel like the cost vs. value will just drive more people to the standard Echo.
But, that isn't the only way they messed up in my opinion. The Echo Show came out at the same time. It is even more expensive than the Plus, but lacks the Hub functionality and is even less good as an audio device. Sure, it adds something else to the package. But that really just complicates things further. And guess what? Google gets an array of devices with screens "for free". At CES a bunch of partners announced that they would be creating Google Assistant devices with touch screens. Google gets multiple entrants without muddying their own lineup with products at confusing price points.
I STILL think EVERYONE is going about it wrong. I have nothing wrong with these "atomic" devices which are complete in and of themselves. But the real path to ubiquity would be a range of devices that augmented existing products people owned. Google already sort of has that in the form of its Chromecast lineup. But, now they need Chromecast devices with mic arrays, or even just standalone mic arrays. And perhaps a way to allow the video related Chromecasts to work with touch screens. All of a sudden ANY device with a speaker could become a "fully fledged" Google Home device and any device with a touchscreen and speakers can be a full touch equivalent.
I know, I repeat this way too much. So I'll stop. Short story, Google's momentum in this sphere is staggering. I wish they were willing to be more proactive than reactive in this space. But, even without that, their ecosystem is just a better vehicle for this. Amazon can't easily change that. Apple could be a competitor in the same way they compete in phones (bigger margins but fewer sales) but even they seem hell bent on screwing it up.
Comments
Post a Comment