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

251–260 of 468 posts

Re: Google Home

#251

Post by dredmorbius »

DarkContinent wrote: post #41
bbunqq wrote: post #8

You too can bring a slice of 1984 into your home with this lovely crafted listening device!

The difference between this product and 1984 is that we choose to install Google home into our places of residence for our own convenience. We are not forced into installing said software. That having been said, if Google chooses to release the data to the government, it has an obligation to tell us about that or it will be behaving unethically. As matters stand, however, this is just a new technology with pros and c…

Do you choose them in the home of a friend you're visiting?

Do you choose them in the office you work in?

Do you choose them in the store you're shopping in?

Do you choose them in the cafe you're talking in?

Do you choose them at the bus stop you're waiting in?

Do you choose them in the transit you're riding in?

Do you choose them in the car-share you're riding in?

That element of choice can close very quickly.

Sensors will and are turning up in light switches, lights, appliances, stereos, video and audio systems, advertising displays, and more.

Unless such devices are required, say, by law, to comply with some form of universal off switch.

Re: Google Home

#252

Post by TeMPOraL »

pessimizer wrote: post #170
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.

Fortunately for him, the society of the Federation isn't driven by greed and personal profit seeking anymore, so they can focus on doing things the right way - like making the starship computer process voice recognition instead of sending it God knows where via subspace.

Re: Google Home

#253

Post by noir_lord »

dredmorbius wrote: post #212
bch wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tablet connected to a network?

Frequently, yes. Though not 3GL/4GL mobile networks. I'm aware of the risk and hypocrisy. I'm also far from happy with it (I increasingly dislike Android, Samsung, and with varying levels, Google). But given the balance of something I can power down, that isn't always on me, and the portability and cost benefits over an alternative laptop, its a far-less-than-perfect satisficing solution for now.

I'm thinking my nexus will be my last Android device, not decided yet what I want to replace it with but dumb phone is looking likely, I'm either at home, the office or somewhere I can use my laptop so don't really have the need for a tablet, I might been able to google the odd thing now and again when out and about but that's a once or twice a week thing for me.

I've come to resent carrying a phone all the time, I rarely answer it and resent that "I tried ringing but you didn't answer!" whine you get as though it's beyond incredulous that you would ever not answer the phone.

Re: Google Home

#254

Post by TeMPOraL »

sdegutis wrote: post #197
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 know, I feel the opposite. When I was younger, I wanted the same thing. To be kind of like Tony Stark in Iron Man, with all the convenience and power that future technology seems to promise. But now that I'm old and boring, I'm perfectly happy with my non-futuristic life. We still have an iPhone 3G which we use as an iPod around the house (which we plug into our speakers the old fashioned way, by plugging one end…

I have a similar view but for different reasons (though I do own an S7 - but for different reasons[0]).

I still want to be like Tony Stark, or captain Picard. I want the cool future stuff. But I came to two realizations - a) it's always cooler in the movies than in real life, but b) even taking that into account, our future sucks compared to theirs. In the movies I like, technology was about empowering people. They were tools. Today, more and more the products are nice looking but barely functional, and sport the minimum subset of features that can be sold to the lowest common denominator.

So take Google Now. Does it recognize voice? Yes, quite well I'd say. Would it be a problem for Google to let you hook up your own actions and data sources to the system, so that you could make yourself a Star Trek environment with a spare tablet attached to a wall? No, it wouldn't. It's an obvious feature. A feature which they - and pretty much everyone else - refuses to provide. Why? Because fuck useful. Lowest common denominator doesn't need that.

[0] - I'm tired of buying shitty hardware. When I change the phone, I prefer to shell out for a top-of-the-line model to be 100% sure it will work fast and stay ahead of the bloat. I learned it the hard way with my first smartphone, which was barely powerful enough to lift its own OS - and trying to connect it to Internet always ended up with having to pull out the battery. I was stuck with it for a couple of years. A smartphone is something I use quite a lot every day, and even little frustrations accumulate.

Re: Google Home

#255

Post by noir_lord »

sdegutis wrote: post #197
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 know, I feel the opposite. When I was younger, I wanted the same thing. To be kind of like Tony Stark in Iron Man, with all the convenience and power that future technology seems to promise. But now that I'm old and boring, I'm perfectly happy with my non-futuristic life. We still have an iPhone 3G which we use as an iPod around the house (which we plug into our speakers the old fashioned way, by plugging one end…

Not so much as you might think, I'm pretty much the same as are most of the programmers I know my age IRL, been programming since I was 7 so nearly 30 years, have no intention of buying VR unless it's useful for work, I'm past the point of buying tech because it's new, I want genuinely useful and less hassle than the alternative.

Re: Google Home

#256

Post by yoo1I »

skybrian wrote: post #184
Analemma_ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have no idea, but I saw this tweet

> @Pinboard they did talk about privacy though: the video app shows your camera feed to whoever calls you before your call starts

https://twitter.com/computerality/status/732995563034169345

Re: Google Home

#257

Post by evolve2k »

There's no way I'm putting something like this, collecting data directly for Google in my house.

Anyone else have privacy concerns?

Re: Google Home

#258

Post by dredmorbius »

noir_lord wrote: post #253
dredmorbius wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frequently, yes. Though not 3GL/4GL mobile networks. I'm aware of the risk and hypocrisy. I'm also far from happy with it (I increasingly dislike Android, Samsung, and with varying levels, Google). But given the balance of something I can power down, that isn't always on me, and the portability and cost benefits over an alternative laptop, its a far-less-than-perfect satisficing solution for now.

I'm thinking my nexus will be my last Android device, not decided yet what I want to replace it with but dumb phone is looking likely, I'm either at home, the office or somewhere I can use my laptop so don't really have the need for a tablet, I might been able to google the odd thing now and again when out and about but that's a once or twice a week thing for me. I've come to resent carrying a phone all the time, I r…

What I like about the tablet is the size, the battery life, the switching between landscape (generally: composing w/ keyboard) and portrait (generally: reading long-form content) modes. A 10" form factor plus bluetooth keyboard is sufficient for some Real Work (though that's hugely crippled by system and software limitations).

As a comms device, on a sufficiently fast WiFi/broadband connection, it's also useful. I've not done that often, but it's been done, and I was impressed.

The OS is a mess in many particulars.

It handles external storage poorly. It doesn't multi-taske well. Multi-window mode is specific to application. The default shell userland is unforgiveably anemic (Termux, one of a few available add-ons is much better). Lack of comprehensive privacy controls, or insight, is a huge issue.

The app "ecosystem" is pathologically broken. I've written on this at G+, my feeling is it needs to be scrapped.

Samsung's own tweaks are also pretty bad. The fact that the device is entirely locked down from a bootloader perspective (it was a bit of a panic on-the-road buy) has become beyond annoying. Inability to remove certain stock apps is a major concern.

Google's "Play" store is beyond annoying.

I'm watching for news of Firefox OS and Ubuntu's mobile offerings. I'm not particularly hopeful. A small laptop _might_ be a suitable replacement, if I can park Linux on it (without systemd).

Mostly it's a very effective advertisement against itself.

And more generally: the tech world very, very, very badly needs to find a non-advertising business model.

Re: Google Home

#259

Post by TeMPOraL »

dominotw wrote: post #16
bbunqq wrote: post #8

You too can bring a slice of 1984 into your home with this lovely crafted listening device!

Google phone can now do 'ok google' behind lock screen.

Only if the phone is connected to a charger, at least on mine. If it could always do "ok Google" on a phone regardless of whether or not it is connected, it would be infinitely more useful. Since I opted in to use Google Now in the first place, I actually want that.
Post reply on HN