Submitted by WestEst101 t3_z8rxfo in Futurology
Comments
iCANNcu t1_iyd0x1j wrote
They have proven time and again they can’t be trusted with our data and we never can. These companies are run by power hungry sociopaths who don’t care for humans. I doubt they even see regular people as humans.
cordcutternc t1_iye0kt1 wrote
Have you ever fired up the Alexa app and reviewed all of your past recorded voice commands and interactions? And that's just the stuff they acknowledge and make available!
Adventurous_Whale t1_iyevq47 wrote
So you think Amazon is recording even more voice command history than what they show? That’s very much not true
[deleted] t1_iyewni6 wrote
[removed]
americon t1_iydkd26 wrote
Maybe I’m naive but I sort of trust Apple. They wouldn’t give up the San Bernardino Shooter’s information to the FBI so would they really give up my information?
iCANNcu t1_iydlu2w wrote
I think it's naive. Apple is not a person with a personality, it's a corporation that has just 1 goal, to make as much money as possible for it's shareholders. Just look at how they cooperate with the Chinese government to see how their values on privacy really are. Right now their (false) image of being respectful of your data is making them money in the US and that's what matters to Apple, it's not because of their 'values and principles' as a company.
SeVenMadRaBBits t1_iydqau4 wrote
To add to this.
Companies are run by individuals that switch out. The companies goal is always to increase profits so the switch is usually to someone who will make them more money and many times the person willing to take things further than the previous person which is how we got to where we are with many greedy/ shady companies.
Just because you could trust it once doesn't mean you still can.
DoubleDivorcedDude t1_iydn91x wrote
There wasn't any money to be made handing data over to the FBI.
Dje4321 t1_iyduqbj wrote
They absolutely gave up the shooters information though. They handed over their icloud backups without hesitation which depending on your phone settings, could be your entire phone and everything on it. Your contacts, your messages, installed apps, photos, etc. Most people want their phone to be exactly the same when they restore from a backup, so you have to keep a copy of all of it if you want to restore it.
The FBI wanted access to the phone via a backdoor. Apple had no way of doing it as they didnt know the shooters password. So the FBI sued them to try and force them to add a backdoor to their software so they could try and bypass it. Apple refused because
-
it would eliminate any trust people had with them. Most people wouldnt buy an apple product if the government can just goto them and demand they change their software. Apple and the FBI can say they only added the backdoor once, but with a closed source eco system as tight as IOS, you have no real way to audit or verify anything that happens. the FBI could demand every text message that gets sent is emailed to them and you would have no real way to knowing without a massive amount of work to deconstruct IOS at all levels to verify.
-
because even if they did create a backdoor to let them bypass the password, most of the data would still be encrypted with the devices password (if apple set it up todo that, pretty stupid if they didnt)
There was nothing stopping the FBI, from simply cloning the devices storage, and simply guessing the shooters passcode which if it was a pin, would take a week at the absolute longest but more than likely, it could burn through all the combinations if a matter of minutes.
queequagg t1_iydzm2n wrote
>They handed over their icloud backups without hesitation
Of course they did, the FBI had a warrant. They follow the law. It is the user’s choice whether to use a cloud backup, however. You can use encrypted local backups if you prefer.
>because even if they did create a backdoor to let them bypass the password, most of the data would still be encrypted with the devices password
The back door the fbi wanted was a way to inject and run cracking software on the device. Most people’s passcodes are 4-6 digits. That’s trivial to crack, except that the OS (and in more recent phones, the Secure Enclave hardware) limits the rate of decryption attempts. IIRC the FBI found an Israeli company that used security flaws to do exactly that.
>There was nothing stopping the FBI, from simply cloning the devices storage, and simply guessing the shooters passcode which if it was a pin
The pin is entangled with a hardware encryption key physically built into the cpu. Cracking the encryption off the device is practically impossible.
Most_Job8557 t1_iydq5ae wrote
They made sure that doesn't happen ever again.
garry4321 t1_iyeed8d wrote
That was a super publicized forum where Apple was basically given a golden opportunity to publicize that they werent going to share data. The risk with the FBI/law enforcement was nothing compared to the publicity and "trust" they could milk out of the situation.
If you think they are going to put one ounce of their ass on the line to protect you or not secretly use your data for their own goals, you are mistaken
JL151 t1_iyeyxdt wrote
I always felt like that was more of a publicity stunt to garner more "trust". Like other post said, they can't make money from giving it to the fbi... So let's fight them and show the people we can be trusted... Google has admitted that data mining and sharing is their most lucrative income. Apple just wasn't ready to come out of the closet yet. And with as many of the security breaches ALL these companies have had, its already out that none of their collected data is as "safe and secure" as they all claim.
FreeQ t1_iydat0p wrote
“Hey wiretap…”
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iyds44k wrote
Alexa order whisky, three letter agencies guys, the nameles chinese guys, the guys selling my details to spamers, everyone else and Mrs Briggs next door appartment with her ear on the wall, merry Christmas
Cetun t1_iyddexa wrote
Unless you're someone whos personal identifying information is important, like someone who works for the State department or a law enforcement agency. I think people really over estimate the capabilities of these companies with your data. I don't really opt out of any data mining, and periodically I will go on my Google add preferences or whatever. It's that section where Google shows you everything they "know" about you. Half of it is extremely wrong, so their profile of me is 50% accurate maybe. Just anecdotally I would think that if I were to opt out of all information gathering, Google would still be able to get information about me. I'm a registered voter so they know my name age and street address, in many states department of motor vehicles will sell that information, but it's not hard to find another places. It's not hard to find out that I'm a male, as part of general data collection from other companies they probably know what bank accounts I have, what magazine subscriptions I have, what college I went to, my cars. They can probably gather a couple of my general interests from other sources.
At the end if I were to opt out of all data collection they probably have a more accurate view of my interests. They would probably have a 90% accuracy. As for your personal information such as Social Security number, passwords, email address, ect. those will likely be gained through places with the least security. So most of your personal data will probably be taken from a parking app that your city might force you to download in order to park in public parking. That app probably doesn't have a super robust infosec team and is likely run by some guy who is friends with some council member. Your social security number is probably going to be from someday to breach from a loan servicer or insurance servicer.
Maybe I'm just an exception but with all the bad data they have on me, the "targeted" ads are either way way off base or just literally shit I have bought. I've never encountered a useful "targeted ad" in my life.
Dje4321 t1_iydw2q9 wrote
the thing about targeted ads most people think of, the information doesnt come from one source, it comes from a bunch of sources that get aggregated together. So while google may know nothing, someone else is going to know something, and combining the two means they can know alot.
​
If a data source sees that someone is staying at address XXX for 8+ hours a day during the night, then they can assume they live there or are related in someway. They can get another data source and get a list of names of people who live at that specific address. So now you know not only where they live, but who they have a relation too. Another data source might show you traveling from that house to an office building where you spend another 8+ hours a day at.
How many people live at that address, works at this location, and is possibly related to this list of people. 99% of the time, its going to be a small list of 1-5 people and once you have it down that far, figuring out more information isnt difficult.
By combining data sources, you can get information greater than the sum of its parts with very minimal work.
Corviticus t1_iydds0a wrote
Lol "opt out". If that makes you feel good man
Cetun t1_iydj5k2 wrote
This is a debate about what it means to for large companies to have access to your "personal information". I'm discussing that. If all you can bring to the discussion is a quip that you think the reddit mob will upvote your usefulness to discussions about policy has come to an end. We can only hope that you're actual usefulness amounts to at least some menial labor you provide to the economy.
Corviticus t1_iydk1v4 wrote
I was the one who started this comment thread that you spent way to long commenting on. So you've already lost your argument on what I can 'being to the discussion'.
Maybe you're debating what it means for large companies to have access, but my comment (that you responded to mind you) brought up the reason for why Alexa is failing.
Get your info straight before you come at me bunk
Cetun t1_iydm9e6 wrote
You said these companies "haven't proven" that they can be trusted with your information. I pointed out that likely they haven't done anything useful with your information, and in fact the more information they gather the less useful that information will probably be. That directly speaks to the allegations you made in your comment. If you can't see that I don't know what to say.
Also I don't know why you think Amazon isn't a large company. Alexa isn't some small startup, Alexa is Amazon. It's disingenuous to characterize it as not the product of a large company.
[deleted] t1_iydsyl9 wrote
[removed]
Corviticus t1_iydo1op wrote
Show me where i said Alex was small.
When Google is working with the fbi and fbi won't answer questions honestly to congress. That's a problem. Your argument of 'yea they have it but they probably won't do anything with it', doesn't matter, it's ridiculous. That's the same line of thinking as the Patriots Acts defense. 'if you don't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about'
Most_Job8557 t1_iydqlly wrote
I can't stand people like them honestly.
We fought centuries for peace, freedom and equality. And it's only going backwards.
[deleted] t1_iydqt5r wrote
[removed]
asyrin25 t1_iydrqw9 wrote
When was the peace, freedom, and equality again?
Most_Job8557 t1_iydsqog wrote
>When was the peace, freedom, and equality again?
It was getting closer at least.
asyrin25 t1_iyduv6j wrote
Was it? When?
Prior to the Patriot act in 2001?
I bet we can both think of some groups that had pretty lousy times in the 80s and 90s who might disagree with that.
Cetun t1_iydytrj wrote
>Maybe you're debating what it means for large companies to have access, but my comment (that you responded to mind you) brought up the reason for why Alexa is failing.
Why is Alexa failing? -> data access concerns -> those concerns are overstated and not that big of a concern -> "what youre saying has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You're talking about large companies and I'm talking about Alexa"
What info do you think the FBI is getting from Google that is problematic?
Corviticus t1_iydzsnl wrote
Jesus christ you are Cathy Newman. Also don't use quotes when that not my quote dude.
It read, you are talking about large companies in general about data access. I was talking about SPECIFICALLY Alexa and WHY it was failing. Another large company may have a voice AI that isn't failing. You see how those two things are different?? You are conflating my words in your head and spitting them back out with your own distortion. Then accusing me of karma farming or something. Sod off bunk.
I'm over it. I'm blocking you.
[deleted] t1_iydyql2 wrote
[deleted]
MpVpRb t1_iydr9lo wrote
Kinda reminds me of a Reagan quote. He was asked "do you trust Gorbachev?". He answered "I trust him to act in the best interests of the USSR"
They can definitely be trusted to use our data to their advantage
DustinHammons t1_iyd5l91 wrote
This - the common sense approach is always fucking ignored.
Arponare t1_iyeykhk wrote
Increased? I never trusted these MFers with my data to begin with.
Corviticus t1_iyf3fef wrote
Yes. Collective Public increase. Not everything is always about you.
Arponare t1_iyf3lpt wrote
I was being facetious. This is reddit, mate. It's not that serious.
imnotreel t1_iye7775 wrote
I don't think this has as much of an impact. A quick glance at app and service popularity will tell you how little people actually care about privacy and how most of us will happily give any of our data away for the slightest modicum of convenience or novelty.
Corviticus t1_iye7gvk wrote
Many people yes, but not all. And Alexa wasn't always losing money. There has been a very obvious and open distrust that's grown the past 2 years. Things have changed
Tundrok87 t1_iyexxnc wrote
Alexa absolutely was ALWAYS losing money. It blows my mind how people just make shit up to fit whatever narrative they want
Asimpbarb t1_iyegvdo wrote
So true we would talk around the devices and next thing we know we saw adds about those things, or the screen would turn on and a voice would ask if we wanted to order.
ERSTF t1_iye3nrj wrote
I think that it has to do more with being a first world problem. Voice assistants are a solution searching for a problem to solve. They really have no essential application for a great deal of the world population. Being able to say "Alexa turn the lights off. Alexa, turned the volume down" hardly screams to be widely implemented or has any essential application. If we suddenly lost voice assistants right now... like a glitch takes out Siri and Alexa right now... how is your life going to be impacted? Barely... like a minor nuisance. Add that privacy concerns in exchange of something that feels like a gimmick... the technology is doomed, I believe
Corviticus t1_iye4gmm wrote
I can totally understand your point. It's a gimmick. It's cool, it's convenent. It's not game changing
RDL55 t1_iyedok5 wrote
Great observation
Atworkwasalreadytake t1_iydwba2 wrote
This is why I don’t have Alexa.
Adventurous_Whale t1_iyeviox wrote
I don’t see that being a big impact. The reality is that the privacy concerned customers never really bought in. The customer base isn’t really shrinking but new customer retention has always been a problem.
Arponare t1_iyeylgv wrote
Increased? I never trusted these MFers with my data to begin with.
dice1111 t1_iyfbi64 wrote
Exactly this. If the system was local and only for you, then I would have no problems at all using it.
WestEst101 OP t1_iycwwmv wrote
A recent report indicating that Amazon's Alexa division is on track to lose $10 billion US this year is raising questions about the future of the entire voice-assistant industry.
Microsoft Cortana has already pulled out, leaving just three large players (Apple Siri, Google, and Amazon Alexa)
Having been seen as the new interface for computing and AI (much like the moise was at one point), some feel the industry is already doomed. Others feel it’s still in its infancy.
The problem is twofold:
-
A lack of an ability to monetize the industry
-
Integration with other computing elements. Google’s platform is already embedded in its systems, as is Apple’s, but Amazon’s is not. Amazon’s has many apps (allowing you to even turn on your washing machine), but there isn’t an easy way to let people know about them. It’s like buying a smartphone without knowing an AppStore exists.
No easy solutions
MpVpRb t1_iydrj9i wrote
>The problem is twofold:
It is useless
It works poorly
beaverusiv t1_iyf4a7n wrote
It's also a service that a company owns that sucks up your data. Talk to me again when it is a self-sufficient non-internet-connected peripheral
limitless__ t1_iydk5nh wrote
Siri drives high dollar device sales so it's a win. OK Google drives ad-clicks so it's a win. Alexa drives absolutely nothing so financially it's a disaster.
Khoakuma t1_iydsq7j wrote
I think Amazon were envisioning that Alexa will enable the next level of impulse online purchases. People simply saying "Alexa buy X for me" in their living room and it will automatically order X off Amazon for them.
But like... most people aren't THAT irresponsible with their money... yet. Even impulse buyers wanna see a picture and a price first before clicking order. Not just have Amazon pick god knows what at whichever price. And only find out when it arrive at your doorstep. There might be some people who use it this way but not enough to be a multi-billion dollar industry. Seems like a silly idea for now.
PixelCultMedia t1_iydttyj wrote
The online menus to purchase things were also restrictive and unruly when trying to compare or read reviews. Totally useless for the way I purchase things.
Dje4321 t1_iydwe2n wrote
At most it allows people to place extra orders but no one does that because it sucks at it. Telling alexa to order more dog food is meaningless when it sends you a 40lb bag of puppy chow instead of your normal 13lb pound order of X brand
goodsam2 t1_iydkndt wrote
Is it that they are losing money to get you in the ecosystem.
So you have Alexa connected washing machine, Roomba, lights etc?
The plan was to lose money and get people in the ecosystem but the ecosystem seems niche. I'm interested in some of this stuff but also IDK what the numbers look like but 60% of people hate them listening which if you are a couple that means you aren't adding that many more.
Optimized_Orangutan t1_iyd523r wrote
I threw my Alexa out when they started pushing suggestions I don't ask for and generally making the product shittier. "Listen to my command-> execute the task -> shut the fuck up" should be the flow chart for all interactions. I replaced 90% of what Alexa did for me with an egg timer and a radio. They don't talk back or push adds on me.
RealCoolDad t1_iyd7xxv wrote
She has been extra chatty lately. I have to yell at her to shut it.
Optimized_Orangutan t1_iyd8ch0 wrote
Ya... My Alexa was unlucky enough to be placed close to the fire escape with a direct shot into the dumpster the morning she started yammering on about shit trying to suggest something after I asked about the temperature outside.
lumaleelumabop t1_iydv2f8 wrote
My google hub has been doing something kinda similar, it randomly suggests commands to me. I use it a lot for music, and usually its a simple "Hey Google, Stop" and it will cut the sound. Sometimes it just says "Ok" and keeps playing. Very annoying.
FeralCJ7 t1_iycyxib wrote
Anecdotal, obviously. We have echoes in our house. All over the place. I absolutely love them. Music in my kids' rooms at night, lights on and off, play holiday music while we decorate, it's great.
BUT if Apple had been on the market earlier with their Homepod and home kit, I would have purchased that instead because we are already invested in the Apple ecosystem. I think it's the same for my friends who have Android and Google home or whatever theirs is called.
Amazon is an outlier; their phone sucked and failed, their tablets are cheap and feel it, their app store is limited, so they just don't have the big integration others do. Where they seem to excel is with their TV service, at least from my personal experience, and their ebook industry.
HandInUnloveableHand t1_iydaoyo wrote
Same on all accounts here. I wish we could have been more Apple integrated, especially for my tech-averse husband (who took forever to install Alexa apps and would have preferred it to just be one with his phone)… but it was hard to beat Amazon’s smart plugs and Echos for both ease and cost.
ackillesBAC t1_iydu4bw wrote
I'm a hardcore Tech person, I've been automating my house for 20+ years. We have Google devices all over the house and same as you we love them. I really hope they don't go away, and if they do I hope they give us access to the hardware to use it on our own. Would be great if you could just run it all off your own 15$ Raspberry Pi
gaztaseven t1_iyd9d3k wrote
The monetization problem comes from a false belief that "by 20xx, everyone will want one of these in their homes!" while completely ignoring the fact most people can't or won't budget for what amounts to an overpriced talking alarm clock. Especially when your phone can perform the same function.
blastuponsometerries t1_iye4r75 wrote
But you forgot that the talking alarm clock can listen to all your private conversations. How exciting
Spud_Rancher t1_iyeuvja wrote
The whole home automation really isn’t taking off like I believe these companies thought it would.
I’m not going to retrofit my 100+ year old starter house to do stuff that takes minimal effort on my part.
My wife and I had talks about building our next home, and the only thing I would really want “automated” would be like turning outside lights on when coming home after dark or adjusting the thermostat before leaving work, simple functional things.
Automating everything is also just asking for extra failure points.
UniversalMomentum t1_iycz4bi wrote
Maybe for Amazon without charging a subscription, but not for Siri and Google that have become part of the phone platform and leverage their development cost from phone profits.
Amazon should have decent options to expand into senior support and better emergency support in general. Most of these smart microphone speaker are not being used to anywhere near their potential. They have closed corporate structures instead of like at least opening an app store.
That all being said I don't see a big need for more than two major voice services unless Amazon starts making their own phones, maps, calendar and email services like google and apple. The assistants need to be integrated from phone to desktop to home to get the best uses. Right now Google wins at most of that.
Amazon also probably has an option to massively reduce over-spending on Alexa without it being doomed because after development costs it shouldn't cost a ton to keep the service up. It's not like it's a bunch of gears and levers or brains in jars, it's just some voice recognition and simple enough code/responses.
They probably were burning money on development and moonshot ideas, but that might not represent real cost to operate long term.. so I wouldn't doom it yet and there is almost no chance voice assistants will go away from Apple and Google platforms.
Semifreak t1_iyd3k4l wrote
You make good points.
Generally speaking about voice assistants, I am still waiting for them to actually get smart. Using them now is too frustrating to really have them be my main interaction. This isn't just not understanding simple commands, but the assistant seemingly completely forgets what you are doing after each one sentence.
I've seen company demos/presentation when you can follow up and carry a conversation (saying something like, "no, not that, the other one", or "no, the other video" and the assistant would follow). But when will that be actually available?
Also, I wonder if any of these big voice players already do other things with their tech like work in the medical field. There are some use in auto chat and phone calls for customer support, but are they sharing and learning from each other and these different industries/markets? Or are they fairly isolated to their phones?
At this stage, voice commands are still in the 'look how cool this is' phase. For my self, I only practically use voice for telling my phone to start a timer or add a reminder- and it is a hit or miss that the phone will do it because correcting that i annoying. You still can't talk to it, just blurb out single simple sentences and between each sentence it feels like you are talking to a gold fish that completely starts a new thought/memory per sentence.
Bringing it all back to the topic at hand, I wonder if Amazon will, can, or should expand their voice assistant to other industries and maybe collaborate with other fields.
I want voice to be actually practical and useful than it is today that it would actually want to make users (and actually assist professionals) more than it does now. For now, for everyone around me, using voice is just a novelty.
Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iycz9e6 wrote
I have gotten used to having a bunch of Alexa’s around the house, but all we use them for is music, timers, alarms, the weather and the date. I would say that they should strip down the servers to just the main functions like I mentioned above, and increase the price of the individual units.
CruxCapacitors t1_iydf4oi wrote
Google Home here, but pretty much the same. I like having them around for those functions (and even upgraded some of them to have better music quality in those rooms where I can't be bothered to hook up devices to play lossless music), as well as an intercom system so that I don't have to yell or knock on their door every time I need someone's attention, but I otherwise don't really require much out of them.
If they increased the price though, I'm not sure I'd bother. Less functionality and higher prices is hardly a consumer friendly strategy.
Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iydgva4 wrote
Yes, it’s not a consumer friendly strategy, but they need to do something to stop the cash hemorrhage.
ackillesBAC t1_iydubj6 wrote
Exactly the same here
Mdly68 t1_iydx1m6 wrote
A dead product? Absolutely not! We're constantly using Alexa to control lights, check the weather when we dress our kids for school, kitchen timers, getting alerts when a package shows up, etc.
What sucks is everyone expects their voice assistant for free. There's a ton of development time that goes into this stuff.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to charge a monthly fee for Alexa/Siri/whatever. I avoid all ads on all platforms, and literally tell Alexa to go to hell if she tries to sell me a product or service. A small monthly fee would be a fair trade off.
DarthDregan t1_iye65bt wrote
Think of it like this: do you want a corporation to have a wire active in your house at all times to monitor you? Even when you aren't talking to Alexa?
YDanSan t1_iyejzem wrote
I mean, at this point I've had a cell phone living in my pocket for the past ~15 years.
I'm not sure what good data Alexa is getting from hearing me turn on my bedroom lights and talk to my cat, but... I'm sure it completely pales in comparison to whatever Apple, Samsung, Verizon, and AT&T know about me.
bikequestion12 t1_iyd2oa6 wrote
But how will I set timers for things I have in the oven!?
androiddrew t1_iyeipwa wrote
I think there is a lot of room for a better virtual assistant experience. Remember these devices came on the market almost 10 years ago. And the experience they made was really request/response . Models for ASR, NLP, TTS have gotten a lot better. Toss in a non-toxic large language model (GPT3 but better) and the experience of these assistants haven’t really kept up with the times.
I think there is a market for a higher end Virtual Assistant. One that uses a Metahuman avatar and a more modern model stack to allow for a much more human like interaction with the machine. The big gap I see is the lack of a context based memory in that type of interaction. The movie “Her” did a great job with the idea that the VA learned who you are and had records “a memory” of your interactions with it. I know channel theory isn’t popular but a visual channel in the experience could also improve the interaction, but you have to cross the uncanny valley. Thats where I think a Meta Human avatar could fit. We can curate an animated experience that seems much more life like too, given enough time.
To solve the security issue you can have a edge device like a Jetson Orin host all the data and models locally(except a LLM ). Or hell just allow it to run on a PC locally. Then offer a cloud product for people that don’t care. I am actually working on a Jetson Orin based stack to address both latency and security…it just costs $1200 for the chip module alone. So these devices aren’t cheap if you need it on the edge.
On the topic of cost these big companies wanted these mainstream in the home so they sold them at a loss. I don’t think you can do that with the high edge solution I mentioned above.
FuturologyBot t1_iyd141i wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/WestEst101:
A recent report indicating that Amazon's Alexa division is on track to lose $10 billion US this year is raising questions about the future of the entire voice-assistant industry.
Microsoft Cortana has already pulled out, leaving just three large players (Apple Siri, Google, and Amazon Alexa)
Having been seen as the new interface for computing and AI (much like the moise was at one point), some feel the industry is already doomed. Others feel it’s still in its infancy.
The problem is twofold:
-
A lack of an ability to monetize the industry
-
Integration with other computing elements. Google’s platform is already embedded in its systems, as is Apple’s, but Amazon’s is not. Amazon’s has many apps (allowing you to even turn on your washing machine), but there isn’t an easy way to let people know about them. It’s like buying a smartphone without knowing an AppStore exists.
No easy solutions
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z8rxfo/alexa_is_the_voiceassistant_industry_doomed/iycwwmv/
[deleted] t1_iyd6ggt wrote
[removed]
PengieP111 t1_iyd8fmc wrote
I hope so. I’ve found them pretty damaged useless and irritating
goodsam2 t1_iydkal8 wrote
Literally all I want from those machines are to turn the bedroom light down or off and occasionally the weather.
Having the consistent connection with my light bulb was a huge upgrade, my wi-fi connected one always disconnected every couple of months.
I've thought about more lights and automation but most of it doesn't seem like it's worth it.
clichesaurus t1_iye0llo wrote
Here's something I found on the web. According to JimLovesDoom6969.geocities.yahoo.com, Doom was released on December 10, 1993 and received critical acclaim for its advancement of the first person shooter genre
Devlarski t1_iye19su wrote
Helpful for those who are occupied while driving or have physical disabilities. There's a market for it but it's just not as big as they'd hope. Nevertheless products like these should continue to exist and improve.
[deleted] t1_iye3bhu wrote
[removed]
milllergram t1_iye5eyu wrote
Non-existant 'App Stores'. As a developer I'd love to build apps for the assistants but the development path for app developers keeps changing. They're still figuring it out and they will. It just needs more time. Lots of opportunity for apps beyond alarms and home control.
Valus_ t1_iye7a29 wrote
Maybe if they just sold this tech for the tech that it is, versus some sort of "loss leader" with the intent of monetizing it later. I use my Echo Dot every single day and would happily have paid a bit more for it to continue to improve and be an exceptional home voice assistant, versus getting a half-baked products (at half the cost-- I paid $25 for my new gen 5 dot) with all these monetization features built in like 'voice shopping' that will never see a penny from me.
AshFaden t1_iyeblh1 wrote
Seen this headline so much recently.
Who cares?
Am I just that out of touch or jaded?
BJaacmoens t1_iyed8m0 wrote
Part of the problem might be that there's no way to accurately capture what the profits are because users may not be using the product as intended.
Specifically, I use the shopping list feature to remind me to purchase items, half the time those purchases are on Amazon.com's phone app or website, where I can view the specs and compare various items. I don't place the order through Alexa itself.
I may not have made that purchase if not for the ability via Alexa to remind myself about it. So Amazon's still profiting from the device but it's not being accounted that way because I'm completing the sale on the site.
[deleted] t1_iyednis wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iyeejb4 wrote
[removed]
Mr_Tigger_ t1_iyeh21t wrote
Won’t let Alexa or Google listen to anything in the house, but fully contradict myself using Siri mostly for directions and calling people without unlocking the phone.
Mountain-Pause5110 t1_iyeiqkk wrote
It will be a shame, voice commands is the feature that makes the life a lot easier to my elderly mother
Gnovakane t1_iyel98n wrote
I don't think it is an item that can be monetized other than making the item you are buying more appealing.
It is the 2020's version of the TV remote.
Why would anyone buy a Bluetooth speaker without voice assist?
Juls7243 t1_iyeof1z wrote
Does it do anything actually useful or worth paying for? Not really.
Does it make its revenue by spying on its consumers and selling their data - yea.
Anastariana t1_iyeqkbt wrote
I hope so, nobody needs corporate wiretaps in their home.
The loss of reputation of tech oligarchs like Musk and Zuck will only accelerate once people realise en masse that everything they say is recorded and sold to marketers who then bombard you with ads.
[deleted] t1_iyesay8 wrote
maaaybe.. just maaaaybe it it time to admit, the idea was stupid to begin with?
[deleted] t1_iyetswt wrote
[deleted]
Adventurous_Whale t1_iyev6bp wrote
Yes, it is doomed past the core use cases today such as smart home device control, timers/alarms, lists, and occasionally music. I’ve worked in this sector for over 5 years and the writing has been on the wall for several years, but executives are just clueless and delusional.
cabezon8 t1_iyf4s92 wrote
They're gonna come out with a subscription to use voice AI watch
Corviticus t1_iyf8nox wrote
Since @adventurous_whale wants to reply and block.
It's irritating when someone tell you you're wrong, you provide sources that say you're right and then they carry on to tell you you're wrong while providing no evidence the self.
Sel2g5 t1_iyd5po6 wrote
I canr speak to siri but I have used Google and Alexa and while Google still seems rudimentary, Alexander is downright worthless. They have had years of data to be able to improve but they still seem to not be able to answer basic questions.
Rad_Dad6969 t1_iydg6rp wrote
These industries are only "doomed" because they were vastly overvalued. And they were vastly overvalued to justify the insane r&d required for voice recognition.
So basically, companies that were already worth trillions decided to lie about the value of voice data in order to aquire enough investment capital to fund r&d that they could already afford.
Stop subsidizing these fucks. We should be funding the research that makes tech like voice recognition possible. If it remains proprietary it has no value to the American economy.
willpowerpt t1_iydqnw9 wrote
Probably especially because we don’t want our every sound being monitored recorded and sold off to other companies.
ackillesBAC t1_iydukpt wrote
If that was true I'd be on your side, but you can monitor the network traffic out of those speakers and they are not constantly sending every sound
MpVpRb t1_iydqypr wrote
I hope so
It's a terrible idea as currently implemented
Maybe, someday, tech might advance to make it useful
Minimum-Breadfruit17 t1_iydso1l wrote
I've never owned one and still could care less about owning one!!!
timbocool t1_iydtua1 wrote
There needs to be a company solely focused on this tech, rather than the big names getting in on it. I have a few Alexa devices, and slowly but surely they all slowly become shit because the forced updates make it purposely slower. Exactly like they do with phones to get you to buy the new versions. The business model is the big problem.
MarkyDeSade t1_iydvylo wrote
Typing is faster than talking. Well, for some of us anyway
CloudHead84 t1_iye8jhw wrote
Typing the lights brighter and adding things to the grocery list while washing dishes with both hands. How do you do that?
malokevi t1_iydtpqh wrote
Why not just add a subscription cost? I would pay 5 bucks a month for Alexa. Also how the hell do they lost 10 billion? Alexa never seems to get any better. Just let me manage my smart devices, talk to my Xbox, add to my grocery list and play music on Spotify. How much man power could it possibly take to maintain this service?
Dildo_Fragins t1_iye1any wrote
Right here, I found the problem folks!!!
The reason we are moving to a subscription in our cars and everywhere else in our life. People dumb enough to pay for them.
malokevi t1_iye2a5b wrote
Ah, grade school insults, nice work.
Corviticus t1_iycyzsh wrote
Another factor could also be an increasing mistrust in digital surveillance. Some of these companies haven't proven that they can be trusted with our data.