Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Home

home.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 468 posts

Re: Google Home

#161

Post by azinman2 »

jff wrote: post #21
cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

You probably have on in your pocket already, is the thing. (I agree though, I don't want this in my house, and I turned off the "Ok Google" functionality on my phone)

I probably don't -- my phone is often in another room when home.

Re: Google Home

#162

Post by dredmorbius »

Analemma_ wrote: post #26
cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

This entire keynote just keeps highlighting that one sentence from the end of Maciej's wonderful http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm "Yesterday ... I realized how long it had been since I looked at a new technology with wonder, instead of an automatic feeling of dread." EDIT: Speaking of Maciej, if you're not already following him on Twitter, today is the day to do that. He's having a field day…

Google Home: Stasi in an Glade air freshener form factor

https://mobile.twitter.com/Pinboard

https://mobile.twitter.com/Pinboard/status/73298537020423372...

And if you prefer your tweets detwitterpated:

https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/MtHn4A9W...

Re: Google Home

#163

Post by agumonkey »

cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

I laughed hysterically at the same fact last week. Everything we dreamed of 20 years ago feels like a burden now.

Re: Google Home

#164

Post by PeCaN »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #109
jslakro wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Watson?

Can you buy a Watson and put it on your shelf?

About as much as you can buy Amazon Echo or Google Home actually. At least IBM makes very clear what the usage conditions of Watson are, and it's fully extensible.

Re: Google Home

#165

Post by supergeek133 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #112
t0mbstone wrote: post #32

Please, please, please be a completely open, extensible platform... I want to be able to control my Apple TV with my Google Home device. I want to be able to control my Phillips Hue and LiFX bulbs. I want to be able to build my own custom home automation server endpoints and point my Google Home commands at them. I want to be able to remote start my car with a voice command. I want to be able to control my Harmony re…

I have only two wishes: > Please, please, please be a completely open, extensible platform... That's one. The second one is, please make it self-hosted. No cloud bullshit. I know I'll probably never live to see the second one coming true.

Here is the problem, not all devices you could work with it are self-hosted and doesn't allow cloud interactions. Now if you're talking about Home's dependence on a cloud for local interaction, then I get you.

But, on the other side, if it's not open and you can't use any device with it... I'm going to be really upset on a personal level.

The reasons consumer IoT isn't huge yet are: 1) Disparate connection types (e.g., I could buy Z-wave, Wifi, BLE, etc and they all onboard differently) 2) I can't choose which device I want to use with which platform because of politics.

Some of these devices (thermostats or security systems for instance) aren't impulse buys. If I have a Honeywell thermostat, and Home doesn't support it, I either buy a new thermostat or don't buy Home.

That's a crummy choice for a consumer.

Re: Google Home

#166

Post by Vraxx »

balls187 wrote: post #129
Vraxx wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand this motivation. Google profiting from your actions doesn't necessarily mean that you're losing something. It's not a zero sum game between you and Google, there are other actors in the system. A similar analogy would be how social systems are valued by their number of users. Their value is not coming from your pocket, you add value to them by being a user and they add value to you by provid…

> I don't really understand this motivation. Google profiting from your actions doesn't necessarily mean that you're losing something. It has nothing to do with "I should also profit from my data" but rather, I want to contribute less to Google's dominance. Google has become very powerful--it's in the top 10 of lobby spending in the US. Their power is tied to their profits, and limiting my contribution of one, should…

Ah okay. That's fair, I wasn't really considering it as an adversarial situation in terms of power. I was looking at it more from a "purchase this product" or not in an isolated decision.

Re: Google Home

#167

Post by TeMPOraL »

PeCaN wrote: post #164
TeMPOraL wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you buy a Watson and put it on your shelf?

About as much as you can buy Amazon Echo or Google Home actually. At least IBM makes very clear what the usage conditions of Watson are, and it's fully extensible.

So you're saying IBM offers something that could be turned into an Echo-like system? Do you have any links on how to do that? I'm interested.

Re: Google Home

#168

Post by supergeek133 »

izolate wrote: post #6

Looks like something that should've been under the Nest brand. Whatever happened to that?

Awhile back Nest was hiring tons of audio engineers.

My guess was that they took it back with the recent strife, or felt it better connected to the Google brand because of search and music.

Re: Google Home

#169

Post by supergeek133 »

hayleox wrote: post #141
t0mbstone wrote: post #32

Please, please, please be a completely open, extensible platform... I want to be able to control my Apple TV with my Google Home device. I want to be able to control my Phillips Hue and LiFX bulbs. I want to be able to build my own custom home automation server endpoints and point my Google Home commands at them. I want to be able to remote start my car with a voice command. I want to be able to control my Harmony re…

According to Ars Technica, Google Home is actually gonna be more locked down than Amazon Echo. > Initially, Google says that it will not be creating APIs for Assistant and Home and that as such, any integrations with services and other devices will have to come from Google first. This approach is a contrast with the Echo, which is designed to be extensible. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/google-assistant-and…

If true.... seriously Google?

Re: Google Home

#170

Post by pessimizer »

cheald wrote: post #19

When I was younger, I dreamed of something like this. Voice control for my home! A Star Trek computer that I can interact with conversationally! I just say what I want and it happens! Now, I just see an internet-connected microphone in a software black box which I can only interpret as a giant frickin' security liability. I want this, but unless it's open source top-to-bottom, I won't ever actually put one in my home…

Kirk wouldn't have gotten away with half the shit he did if every word he said to the computer roundtripped to the Federation and back before being processed.
Post reply on HN