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

181–190 of 468 posts

Re: Google Home

#181

Post by dandare »

protomikron wrote: post #173

Ok, controversial opinion: "[...] and manage everyday tasks" What exactly do we want to automate at home? I think this whole home automation and smart home stuff is complete bullshit. Obviously there are some nice things, like "play me song xyz", but IMHO it is completely oversold. There are just not that much things to automate at home. And this does not mean that I think 640K are enough memory for everyone.

I came here to ask people of examples of use cases because I just can not see how this can be useful in this decade.

Re: Google Home

#182

Post by bch »

dredmorbius wrote: post #172
jff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've ditched the smartphone. And, for the most part, the phone. I'm not at all happy with the trade-off any more. I've got a tablet, both cameras taped over. Killing the mics would be a Good Thing. Sigh.

Tablet connected to a network?

Re: Google Home

#183

Post by surge »

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…

MyCroft?

https://mycroft.ai/

Re: Google Home

#184

Post by skybrian »

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…

Well, sure, @Pinboard is great if you like snark and don't care about accuracy.

For example: "What’s been missing from my video calls is the ability for people to see me before I’m ready" [1]

This is when you are calling them. Why wouldn't you be ready? It's more like seeing who is outside your door before opening it.

[1] https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/732992053668253696

Re: Google Home

#185

Post by makomk »

izolate wrote: post #6

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

Apparently Nest are having trouble actually releasing anything. There were rumours in the press about this being developed outside of the Nest group for that reason a while back.

Re: Google Home

#187

Post by sf_rob »

dandare wrote: post #181
protomikron wrote: post #173

Ok, controversial opinion: "[...] and manage everyday tasks" What exactly do we want to automate at home? I think this whole home automation and smart home stuff is complete bullshit. Obviously there are some nice things, like "play me song xyz", but IMHO it is completely oversold. There are just not that much things to automate at home. And this does not mean that I think 640K are enough memory for everyone.

I came here to ask people of examples of use cases because I just can not see how this can be useful in this decade.

I mean, all the turn-key stuff is terrible right now, but I've seen some awesome DIY stuff with Homeseer + IFTTT + bash scripts.

My friend's house turns on the front porch light when he gets home, auto-locks the front door if unlocked for more than X minutes, alerts of outside doors that have been open for more than X seconds, dims the lights when he turns on the TV, alerts him when his wife is almost home (she hates that), yells at the dog if he goes into his office, and a hell of a lot more. That said, he's logged dozens of hours getting everything working.

Re: Google Home

#188

Post by ryan_lane »

ilogik wrote: post #159
ryan_lane wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cell phones aren't allowed into classified environments in US government buildings because they can be remotely turned into listening devices without the owner's knowledge. There's been guidance on this for a long time. The cell phone in your pocket is definitely a surveillance device. Let's be real. You don't keep your phone in a Faraday bag and you probably never will.

Even if you do, it can still record audio, and transmit it when you take it out

The carrier needs to remotely tell the device to enter into a special mode, so a faraday bag would be an effectively method to block this.

Re: Google Home

#189

Post by CaptSpify »

hendersoon wrote: post #73
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'm not comfortable with this either, but I recognize it's hypocritical-- after all, smartphones have microphones AND camera and are internet-connected running proprietary software.

The way I see it, the difference is the burden in not having the device. For a lot of people a smart-phone isn't necessary, but it's extremely inconvenient to go without. Whereas these devices are new, so they aren't ingrained into our culture yet.

I agree with you and OP. If there was a good open-source version of either of these, I'd buy them in a heartbeat, but there's not.

Re: Google Home

#190

Post by narrowrail »

vthallam wrote: post #108
soared wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sell the ability to use your data, not to access/see/download it. I can use all the data for ad targeting, but in no way I can actually see it. Advertisers buy the attention, Publishers sell it. Google is the intermediary that connects the right advertiser to the right publishers, and charges x%.

Yes! I find it so hypocritical of people who seems to be extra careful about their personal information. I understand this makes sense for some people, but for most of the others, Google using your meta-data to show things which might interest you and by also helping you with great applications is cool. Not everyone wants to pay for things to get privacy.

You appear to be saying that people who value privacy are hypocritical because you want free stuff and do not care about privacy. I can't find the logic in your comment.
Post reply on HN