I have a couple of these nest speakers. They are are wildly unreliable - buyer beware.
Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
131–140 of 302 posts
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another thing I’m currently realizing as I’m building my own completely local smart assistant (based on Rhasspy): Those black boxes are a lot cheaper. Just the hardware I need to replace an Echo Dot (and excluding the Pi 4 that does the heavy processing) could buy me 2 - 3 Echo Dots from Amazon.
I’ve just started searching for completely local voice assistants, and had only found Mycroft. Thanks for mentioning Rhasspy, that looks like exactly what I want (my search skills failed me yesterday). And I completely agree about HW costs. Just getting a decent mike and speaker peripheral gets you close to the price point of the echo dot. I’m curious how much researching you’ve put into HW options, and if you’re cur…
Rhasspy is amazing! It supports everything I want: central processing with several satellites, multi-language requests (while I want to keep everything English, I also want to request bands not in English), pre-defined commands, fine-tuning.
For the microphone, I want to go with the ReSpeaker mic array in a case [0] for when I need multi-directional far-field recognition (living room, bed room), and probably the often recommended PS2 microphone otherwise (office, kitchen). Speakers will be normal PC stereo speakers in the kitchen, cheapest output I can find for all others (only the kitchen needs to play music while I cook).
rPi 4 will run full Rhasspy (I currently have it on my home assistant pi, I’ll need to see about performance), my old pi3 is running it as a satellite for testing, I want all satellites to be on pi Zero 2 eventually (online discussions say the Zero 1 is too weak for speedy wakeword recognition)
But I still need to do more evaluation and setup before I’m done, currently the satellite can do nothing but turn the office light on and off :D
[0]: https://www.seeedstudio.com/ReSpeaker-USB-Mic-Array-p-4247.h...
edit: Just wanted to add that the reason I’m going with a Pi is not some specific love for it, but that it’s the platform I’ll have the easiest time finding support for online ;) It matters less for the processor, so if the Mini-ITX SoC’s I want become available again, and I can build my own NAS, then maybe Rhasspy will just run on that.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#133Sonos makes products that are best in class?
In terms of what's available in an mass market electronics store, sure. Is it best in class compared to a receiver set up with casting and $2,000 speakers? No, but that's not the problem Sonos is trying to solve.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well because of this I’ll never buy another Sonos product, and recommend everyone I know to something else. I wonder if lost revenue from people like me will make up for any gains here.
Conversely, I’d rather buy (and intend to) from Sonos versus Google considering Google’s product track record (killing everything in short order). Using patents to defend yourself from a Big Tech company is the unfortunate reality.
Fair enough - I don't really offer a great solution here.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system has not been able to define a solid test for "non-obviousness" which is one of the criteria for patentability. As a result, in my experience, approvals are based most notably on "novelty" -- If no one has seemingly done in the past, it tends to get approved. In my opinion, that's what has gone wrong with the system, i.e., not the theoretical criteria for patentability but its execution.
The core problem is that for someone knowledgeable in the field, everything becomes straightforward, but the further away you are from the field, the more novel it becomes -- this is true across the board. Even the great accomplishments where people win Nobel prizes, often it can be argued that it was going to happen anyhow because it was the next step in scientific progress given the context. Thus defining "non-obvi…
And this years Nobel prize goes to ... for securing the funding to do the research
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) Sure, but you can't change it to do something that violates someone's patent without licensing it.
I'm pretty sure I can, as long as I'm not selling it. A patent doesn't ban an object from existence.
I'm pretty sure (dueling IANALs!) you can't. This is why patent licenses are such a key piece of OSS packages that you want companies to be able to use.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversely, I’d rather buy (and intend to) from Sonos versus Google considering Google’s product track record (killing everything in short order). Using patents to defend yourself from a Big Tech company is the unfortunate reality.
Fair enough - I don't really offer a great solution here.
I don't believe there is one. Optimize for yourself.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my reading of the patent, it's not that the concept of speaker groupings was patented. Rather, a specific UI for showing and modifying the groupings and adjusting the volume. Unfortunately, there aren't many different ways to represent groupings in a UI.
UI to do that seems awfully basic.
Isn't simplicity the definition of a good UI? And even if it looks easy, it can be very hard to make something that is simple.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#139Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure I can, as long as I'm not selling it. A patent doesn't ban an object from existence.
I'm pretty sure (dueling IANALs!) you can't. This is why patent licenses are such a key piece of OSS packages that you want companies to be able to use.
Define "use". The GPL explicitly allows internal use / modification of software, for example[1]. It's only when you sell / distribute software that includes OSS components that licenses matter.
I can do whatever I want with OSS code and I can modify consumer electronics I've bought any way I want; there is no need to be concerned with licenses and patents. Only if I want to sell my creation do patents matter.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi...