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

331–340 of 468 posts

Re: Google Home

#331

Post by tlrobinson »

protomikron wrote: post #286
tlrobinson wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't even really explored all the capabilities of Alexa, but I ask Alexa to: 1. read the news (1x per day) 2. play music (~3x per day) 3. turn on/off lights (~8x per day) 4. set a timer (~2x per day) 5. feed the cat (~2x per day... blog post forthcoming)

Yeah, ok, I get that, it is nice. But I do not see some kind of revolution (I am sure I heard that term connected to home automation) that is often proclaimed. For me the time saving is just too low compared with the alternative of wrestling with some kind of UI, but I may change my mind if I try it out for some time? Let's see. //edit: And I think turning lights on/off and playing songs is a really bad example. It i…

Honestly, don't knock it until you try it. Sure I can accomplish the same things by pulling out my phone but it's relaxing to not have to.

Re: Google Home

#332

Post by capitalsigma »

dragonwriter wrote: post #287
hayleox wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Initially doing internal integrations, then releasing API access to trusted partners, then making APIs publicly available is how Google has done lots of things. So, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the route Google does with this.

Yeah, I suspect the idea is that "public APIs are forever," especially in hardware. They probably want to be able to collect some real user data, make a few mistakes and get a better idea of what role the product is actually going to fulfill before committing to something that they'll have to maintain indefinitely.

Re: Google Home

#333

Post by mattmaroon »

I love my Echo but it has a couple weak points, all of which could be solved by a competent platform. I can't, for instance, just tell Alexa to play new podcasts from my lists or directly from the net (except through TuneIn, which sucks.) It doesn't work with many home automation devices. It's AI is not that great when it comes to non-Amazon services.

I'm hopeful the Android platform will make this a better device.

Re: Google Home

#334

Post by highwind »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #160
scrollaway wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you make it self-hosted without making it suck? High quality voice recognition in a small box doesn't seem to be a thing that's even remotely possible today, let alone the query processing and knowledge database that comes with it. You could build this on a pi with a mic, speakers, some foss stt and tts engines and some basic training data. But it'll suck.

Ten years ago I played with Microsoft Speech API - which was completely off-line and trained off your voice. In restricted grammar mode, it worked flawlessly - I built a music control application on it, and utilized it like you would use Amazon Echo - I just said "computer, volume, three quarters" from any place in the room, and the loud music turned down a notch. Etc. That was ten years ago , with a crappy electret…

> I'm not buying you couldn't make a decent, self-contained, off-line speech recognition system.

I agree. It's not a problem of technology, it's a problem of incentive. There's no money in developing self-contained, off-line speech recognition system, unfortunately.

Re: Google Home

#335

Post by eva1984 »

amelius wrote: post #207
mbrock wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Free Software Foundation, in its texts, often uses the phrase "the free world" to mean the realm of computing without proprietary restrictions, surveillance, etc. Approximately since Snowden, I've become more and more convinced about both the fragility and the value of this free world. And today, I basically see the tech giants as colossal enemies. Career-wise, henceforth I will avoid proprietary systems and dedi…

But do you think that free software can keep up against these giants? In the near future, it will all be about having large amounts of data, and processing power; it will be less and less about the actual algorithms. I'm afraid the only way out will be to rethink the economy.

Maybe we need an open data initiative.

Re: Google Home

#336

Post by eva1984 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #326
api wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never EVER under any circumstances would I put a closed-source cloud-connected always-on microphone in my house. Google's entire business model and value as a company revolves around their ability to maximize the accuracy of their consumer profiles. They have no incentive to do anything other than maximally invade privacy. A device like this from them is even creepier than the Amazon Echo. While it's not released yet…

To the advantage of society, Google's value also lies in not alienating people to the point that they shun its products and services . Google cannot sell advertising based on my eyeballs if I won't use Google Search, block ads, avoid Google Maps, and download video via yt-download vs. watching it on the far-less-convenient YouTube website or application. Google have lost me to search, and several other products, for…

20% of the population consciously avoids online activities already due to privacy and surveillance concerns

citation needed.

Re: Google Home

#337

Post by ENGNR »

danellis wrote: post #264
hayleox wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's not what they said in the keynote. They were explicit about the fact that developers would be able to extend it. They used Uber as an example.

I wonder what the point of even announcing it at a dev conference was, save it for CES

Re: Google Home

#338

Post by coldtea »

dguaraglia wrote: post #291
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…

I'm amazed that people still feel this level of paranoia about stuff, when they have a clear option: do not use the product. Concerned about the privacy implication of Google Home? Don't get one. Don't like the fact that Apple Watch reads biometric data? Get a Casio watch. Don't like the fact that Facebook knows who your friends are? Go out more. The very fact that someone is watching the keynote and going "oh my Gaw…

>I'm amazed that people still feel this level of paranoia about stuff, when they have a clear option: do not use the product.

Maybe because people are not islands, and don't think like isolated solipsists but also worry about the wider social implications of a technology?

Them not using a troublesome product won't solve that -- and it might not even solve the implications for them (e.g. like your friends can still tag you on photos on Facebook, even if you don't have an account there). Or you know, visiting a friend's house who has the device.

>The very fact that someone is watching the keynote and going "oh my Gawd, the level of intrusion" at every turn, kind of tells me they are interested in having the features but don't want to provide the data. Otherwise you wouldn't even be watching the keynote. Am I missing something?

Yes. 30+ years of data abuses and privacy encroachment by advertisers.

It's not a paid service with siloed data used only for the service's purpose -- rather the service is the lure to gather even more data for targeted marketing/ads.

Re: Google Home

#339

Post by coldtea »

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

Ever tried recording audio through a closed bag, Faraday or otherwise? I doubt it would be of much use...

Re: Google Home

#340

Post by coldtea »

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.

There's nothing hypocritical about not wanting FURTHER intrusion...

Not to mention, smartphones don't record all you say 24/7 and send it to a foreign data center, except if tampered with. These devices do as their normal operation mode.

Post reply on HN