Live data from Hacker News

Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

googleblog.blogspot.com

221–230 of 543 posts

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the way they see it is: Voice is basically deprecated Hangouts is enterprise Allo and Duo compete with Whatsapp/iMessage and Facetime/Skype respectively

Except that Skype can be used for text chat like Allo. And Apple doesn't really treat Facetime as an app.

> And Apple doesn't really treat Facetime as an app.

It's a separate app on the iPhone, no?

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#222
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook did provide XMPP service until the same time that Google ended it. So that’s definitely a wrong statement.

> Facebook did provide XMPP service until the same time that Google ended it. They never supported federation.

They did support client-server federation, but not server-server federation.

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#223
post #15

Why isn't it always end to end encryption? I'm getting really paranoid and crochety in my old age of 29, as all I see is a tool to make me the product.

The Google Assistant integration is arguably the killer feature of the app. End-to-end encryption would delete it, thus it is not the default.

But, they could have it encrypted except when you explicitly message the assistant. They can also get the full text of the conversation on-device and do the machine learning on it. After all, Apple is doing it for photos, so text should be easier.

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm back from that paranoia period, my conclusions: - In real life you have no privacy, but still you don't think about it (white pages, community hall inscriptions, driving license, medical history, ...), apart of white pages try to unsubscribe from any of them and see what happens. Internet made it just easier to track you. - your safety is based on 2 things your habits and the peers that know you and are willing t…

Wrong, in real life random conversations are not recorded for an unspecified time. The databases you mention have serious judicial requirements (in EU) and no free access by a company. Leaks of course happen, but they are treated seriously and are news items. If Google had a breach, they'd do the same as everyone: cover it up or PR it down and fix it. They won't go bankrupt over even a string of break-ins. There is l…

Well, real live conversations differ from digital ones. Granted that now we can talk about that topic without being in the same room, but depending the topic you won't word your opinion in certain channels, you self censored yourself depending where you are, that's why more than privacy or security what is needed is knowledge about the channel.

I might got wrong the reasons why Google is secure, but I found it convincing

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#225
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll use everything Google, but Duo has been the most stupid video chat app I've ever used. That's because in countries where the common household internet is still not that fast, it 'aggressively' pauses (completely removes) the video for long intervals in every few minutes citing slow connection. That's a frustrating experience. I generally get around 10-12 Mbps speed (which is on the higher side in India), and my…

What's the latency of your connection? You can get 4 Mbps throughput (which is not a lot by itself, BTW), but the latency may be too high for a video chat.

Yes, 4Mbps is not a lot, but since Skype shows something, Duo is effectively worse for me. I didn't measure the latency of my parents' connection. Will have to do it next time I'm there.

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#226
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still have their XMPP as well, but they never enabled SSL so it sends messages in plaintext and won't federate to modern XMPP servers/clients. What a clusterfuck of a company.

Calling Google a clusterfuck of a company is appalling. They would not do this without a strategic thought. Even Facebook has Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp and FB itself. All doing pretty well.

> They would not do this without a strategic thought

But, as the saying goes, "the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry".

Google really does have a really skittish habit of acquisitions, creations, and closures. Remember 'buzzing' with your email? Remember Wave, the product that not even Google knew what to do with? Having a large assortment of applications in your portfolio isn't what is being criticized when calling Google a "clusterfuck", it's the strangeness by which this portfolio is managed. Products rise and fall seemingly without a lot of warning. Some are integrated into others, others are heavily promoted while others are left to fester. With Facebook's acquisitions, they mostly are left to run on their own, just under Facebook control with Facebook slowly sliding their tendrils into each app. (We see this with Whatsapp, Instagram is overrun with ads), but the products themselves aren't integrated or changed dramatically for the end user.

With Google, it's really difficult to get excited or really heavily invested in products that aren't called Gmail because it's just really hard to tell what the product is going to be doing even half a year down the line, or if it will even exist. This isn't "like all other products", this is a statement based off of how Google historically has operated.

It's great that Google is willing to take risks, but they keep pushing these new ventures as having re-invented the wheel and all of the ventures require quite a bit of buy-in from the end-users; if it fails for Google, they write it off since they can. End users are left with a obsolete product they likely intended to use for a heck of a lot longer.

So yeah, when you have Google releasing new apps that compete with already existing Google Apps (as well as a multitude of other similar apps from other companies), I think it's fair to wonder what is going on. Even if there is a strategy, I'm not convinced that it's much more than "let's see if people like this better than ____", which isn't exactly a winning strategy in my book.

Allo/Duo just don't really seem to offer much that doesn't already exist, and their release makes me suspicious about whether or not their current message/video/voice service, Hangouts, is about to get axed or left in the dust or what.

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#227
Great. Let's plan an experiment of using smart replies on both sides. It's like 2 bots chatting! Hope the smart reply adapts to individual's style with time, otherwise, it gets boring easily and the other party might know when a template response sent as 'sorry, no longer interested in you!'

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#228
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook did provide XMPP service until the same time that Google ended it. They never supported federation.

They did support client-server federation, but not server-server federation.

Whats "client-server" federation? Only the fact that you are able to connect via an openly specified protocol or is there more to it?

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#229
If they want an instant network effect there's a really simple play...integrate it with Pokemon Go. If it's the only official IM program that'll work with/is tightly coupled with Pokemon Go enough people will install it.

Might sound silly but I think that would actually be a great play for Google.

Re: Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app

#230
post #154
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their FAQ: "Your chats are end-to-end encrypted and can only be seen by you and the person you're chatting with. Google can't read any of your messages, so you won't see any Smart Reply or Google Assistant features." https://support.google.com/allo/answer/6383724?ref_topic=637...

Who validates that that statement is indeed true, we in our naivety should just plain believe it?

As much as people like a good conspiracy, that would be a pretty pointless one. There are tens of thousands people at google who could look at the source code, many of them with a left-wing/civil liberties attitude.

To get all of them to stay silent, and to evade analysis of the binary is, if not impossible, simply not worth whatever they could get out of reading my messages (esp. considering their uninterrupted stream of emails to read).

It's also why the concept of "brands" makes more sense than may are willing to admit: a blatant lie such as this would probably be worse for google than VWs little problem. Reading someone's private stuff is just bound to rouse more emotions than whatever comes out of the back of your car.

Post reply on HN