i think when schiller said "the idea of not having a screen, I don't think it suits many situations" he was actually referring or alluding to all of apple's exisiting products. as long as siri is updated, the ipad, iphone, apple tv and apple watch will do the work alexa is doing and it won't even be bound at home permanently but rather with you all the time.
Alexa is with you all the time, and it's been using your mobile device and browser for the Alexa interface since its inception. One great feature is being able to report any query that was either heard incorrectly or queried incorrectly so that Amazon knows where issues may reside. I wish Apple had anything even remotely this handy.
People are finding out the hard way the downsides to using a non-secure platform like Amazon's and Google's
In what ways? Both iOS and Android are VERY secure, especially compared to traditional desktop systems like Windows and even Mac. I don't know enough about Amazons' to comment much but as their's is also Android based I'd guess it's also quite secure.
It sounds like you are just at the starting stage of doing research if you think that Android is anywhere near as secure as iOS, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of malware is found on Android versus iOS, the vast majority of Android systems are embarrassingly out of date, Apple has much more stringent requirements for its App store, etc., to name just a few starting points for why there is a big tradeoff in privacy and security when you choose Android. Ditto for home automation where it's much more difficult and time consuming to meet Apple's stringent security requirements, e.g., special secure chips, etc., but that's the tradeoff if you want the security.
That's not what you said. Yes iOS may be more secure, but you said Android is insecure. It isn't.
Check this out.. what if the Apple "speaker" is actually a true speaker, not personal assistant device, that happens to have Siri capabilities.
1) So a speaker without Siri. So the iPod Hi-Fi but BT-only? What exactly does Apple bring to the table since these exist in droves already?
2) How does have Siri make the speaker untrue?
3) The Echo is a great device because it can pair with any iDevice with a single "Alexa, connect" command. The only limitation is that it can only remember the last device. With Apple's W1 chips, iOS and iCloud connectivity they make it connect to any source you wanted and switch sources with a single command by talking to the digital personal assistant. Apple has a clear opportunity to out maneuver Amazon here.
The problem with Echo is that even with many capabilities, not many of them are useful or well executed. Echo is a toy, not really a real assistant gadget.
No more a toy than Siri, Google Now, or Cortana. I've been using my Echo/Alexa every day (I'm home) for 2.5 years. I don't play with toys.
Nah, you can't make an argument for the usefulness of these speakers w/ voice control. They have limited use, and most people can't even reconcile what that limited use would even be.
Siri is not a toy because it is an assistant to a much larger scope device. Not the other way around, where the voice assistant IS the device.
This is why, if Apple has a entry for this kitchen counter product space, it will have a display, and be much like a CarPlay on the counter. There is so much more potential for a device like this than just a speaker with a microphone.
Check this out.. what if the Apple "speaker" is actually a true speaker, not personal assistant device, that happens to have Siri capabilities.
1) So a speaker without Siri. So the iPod Hi-Fi but BT-only? What exactly does Apple bring to the table since these exist in droves already?
2) How does have Siri make the speaker untrue?
3) The Echo is a great device because it can pair with any iDevice with a single "Alexa, connect" command. The only limitation is that it can only remember the last device. With Apple's W1 chips, iOS and iCloud connectivity they make it connect to any source you wanted and switch sources with a single command by talking to the digital personal assistant. Apple has a clear opportunity to out maneuver Amazon here.
The problem with Echo is that even with many capabilities, not many of them are useful or well executed. Echo is a toy, not really a real assistant gadget.
No more a toy than Siri, Google Now, or Cortana. I've been using my Echo/Alexa every day (I'm home) for 2.5 years. I don't play with toys.
Nah, you can't make an argument for the usefulness of these speakers w/ voice control. They have limited use, and most people can't even reconcile what that limited use would even be.
Siri is not a toy because it is an assistant to a much larger scope device. Not the other way around, where the voice assistant IS the device.
This is why, if Apple has a entry for this kitchen counter product space, it will have a display, and be much like a CarPlay on the counter. There is so much more potential for a device like this than just a speaker with a microphone.
But Alexa does the same hing as Siri, so how come Alexa is a toy and Siri isn't?
Does anyone out there have a scorecard or other ranking mechanism that objectively shows where Alexa, Google, Siri are relative to one another in terms of their capabilities? I feel strongly that Siri's experience is really poor...no contextual inputs... still lacking basic intuitive stuff, but that's obviously subjective. I'm a big Apple fan, but Siri really hasn't kept pace IMO. Apple would HAVE to release next gen Siri that is a step-function higher in performance if they are selling a device where voice is its main feature.
Does anyone out there have a scorecard or other ranking mechanism that objectively shows where Alexa, Google, Siri are relative to one another in terms of their capabilities? I feel strongly that Siri's experience is really poor...no contextual inputs... still lacking basic intuitive stuff, but that's obviously subjective. I'm a big Apple fan, but Siri really hasn't kept pace IMO. Apple would HAVE to release next gen Siri that is a step-function higher in performance if they are selling a device where voice is its main feature.
Nothing comprehensive. I can point to instances in SW where one far outperforms the other, but I have nothing contextual that shows that one is superior to another in how it handles common speech for a particular language. All I can say is that Alexa can understands commands more accurately and, to me, sound better when speaking, but those can be answered with HW (the mic and speaker, respectively).
Any ideas for an objective test? I'll see what I can do about testing 2 of the 5 most popular services.
Does anyone out there have a scorecard or other ranking mechanism that objectively shows where Alexa, Google, Siri are relative to one another in terms of their capabilities? I feel strongly that Siri's experience is really poor...no contextual inputs... still lacking basic intuitive stuff, but that's obviously subjective. I'm a big Apple fan, but Siri really hasn't kept pace IMO. Apple would HAVE to release next gen Siri that is a step-function higher in performance if they are selling a device where voice is its main feature.
Nothing comprehensive. I can point to instances in SW where one far outperforms the other, but I have nothing contextual that shows that one is superior to another in how it handles common speech for a particular language. All I can say is that Alexa can understands commands more accurately and, to me, sound better when speaking, but those can be answered with HW (the mic and speaker, respectively).
Any ideas for an objective test? I'll see what I can do about testing 2 of the 5 most popular services.
Soli, thanks. I thought that you could, for example, create a list with Alexa, then add things to it/change via different singular commands. I don't own one, so I'm sorry I'm going off of what I've seen in very basic demos (from memory). If I'm wrong about this, then perhaps that doesn't exist.
Here are a couple of ideas for an objective test, but as a non-expert here it's obviously woefully incomplete.
First, the most basic would be simple via one command/request that is immediately answered or satisfied (or one command, with the AI assistant asking for clarifications). These would be requests for weather, definitions, basic wikipedia stuff, creating
Second, there are commands that cluster together (my "list" example above), or ones that allow the user to add onto the command after the fact, so that they are executing multiple back and forth interactions with an end goal of finalizing some task.
You or others have better ideas or other insights?
Does anyone out there have a scorecard or other ranking mechanism that objectively shows where Alexa, Google, Siri are relative to one another in terms of their capabilities? I feel strongly that Siri's experience is really poor...no contextual inputs... still lacking basic intuitive stuff, but that's obviously subjective. I'm a big Apple fan, but Siri really hasn't kept pace IMO. Apple would HAVE to release next gen Siri that is a step-function higher in performance if they are selling a device where voice is its main feature.
Nothing comprehensive. I can point to instances in SW where one far outperforms the other, but I have nothing contextual that shows that one is superior to another in how it handles common speech for a particular language. All I can say is that Alexa can understands commands more accurately and, to me, sound better when speaking, but those can be answered with HW (the mic and speaker, respectively).
Any ideas for an objective test? I'll see what I can do about testing 2 of the 5 most popular services.
Soli, thanks. I thought that you could, for example, create a list with Alexa, then add things to it/change via different singular commands. I don't own one, so I'm sorry I'm going off of what I've seen in very basic demos (from memory). If I'm wrong about this, then perhaps that doesn't exist.
Here are a couple of ideas for an objective test, but as a non-expert here it's obviously woefully incomplete.
First, the most basic would be simple via one command/request that is immediately answered or satisfied (or one command, with the AI assistant asking for clarifications). These would be requests for weather, definitions, basic wikipedia stuff, creating
Second, there are commands that cluster together (my "list" example above), or ones that allow the user to add onto the command after the fact, so that they are executing multiple back and forth interactions with an end goal of finalizing some task.
You or others have better ideas or other insights?
Lists are an excellent start since both can create them, they are simple, and they use fairly common language. At this point, it's very easy to make one service look better or worse depending on your slant, or even just an innocently poor testing methodology so this will likely take some tweaking. For example, someone who wants to slam Siri could try to set multiple timers. Alexa allows up to 100 (which seems excessive) and Siri allows only one (which seems insufficient), so that's not something I'd test. Sure, it's a bonus for Alexa as these come in handy for cooking in the kitchen and other activities in the house, but it's harder a determination of the AI.
I'll get on that later today (but remind me if you don't see a post by the end of the day, as I'll have to work it in when I find the time).
i think when schiller said "the idea of not having a screen, I don't think it suits many situations" he was actually referring or alluding to all of apple's exisiting products. as long as siri is updated, the ipad, iphone, apple tv and apple watch will do the work alexa is doing and it won't even be bound at home permanently but rather with you all the time.
Alexa is with you all the time, and it's been using your mobile device and browser for the Alexa interface since its inception. One great feature is being able to report any query that was either heard incorrectly or queried incorrectly so that Amazon knows where issues may reside. I wish Apple had anything even remotely this handy.
People are finding out the hard way the downsides to using a non-secure platform like Amazon's and Google's, yes it is a much greater burden on companies to comply with Apple's stringent security requirements for HomeKit, etc., but it is well worth it. There is also the tremendous the privacy you give up when you allow Amazon and Google to collect and store everything you say, which is frightening with hackers the world over learning the value of having a microphone into people's homes collecting everything that is said. The next "ransomware" hack is going to be to let folks know that everything that has been said will be released if you don't pay a few hundred dollars.
Security and privacy are of course two different things, and each needs to be examined in the context of "downsides" or risks for each product & platform & company. For example, IMO Google is likely very strong on security in their core products - that Google takes security seriously from a development perspective and their own services. Similarly, I believe Apple is very focused on security, has an excellent track record, but by having an integrated product the end user has a more secure experience (betting patches faster, products supported longer, etc). Apple in the "real world" is the leader in the context of the users of respective platforms. On the flip side, it would seem that Samsung's own s/w efforts have less focus on security.
On the privacy front, Apple is certainly the leader w.r.t. their stated intentions, AND how they have performed publicly (e.g. FBI case). They have no end user advertising business models. They have taken approaches to data sharing that "may" impact their data sets for learning, in order to increase privacy. They have clearly taken the "privacy protection" side of the debate (and to my knowledge, are the only big tech/product company to do so).
I think it is fair to say, on whole, that the majority of population does not care much about either one (today). However, there is no guarantee that this view/position will remain the same in the future. There are certainly possible scenarios where significant security or privacy breaches occur that, individually or collectively, change the perception such that one or both are valued much more highly. Given the increasing connectivity of all devices, our reliance on these systems, and the increasing cyber threats, my view is that these scenarios are more likely than not. There once was a time when the risks of smoking were not taken seriously by the majority either. That changed.
Who would you rather be then? The company that has demonstrated decades of making this a priority, or companies which have flown free & loose, or even profited from the lack of controls. It seems that when these topics come up, it is only the downside to Apple w.r.t. privacy and it's impact on machine learning that is discussed, but the risks to not protecting privacy are never mentioned.
Comments
Siri is not a toy because it is an assistant to a much larger scope device. Not the other way around, where the voice assistant IS the device.
This is why, if Apple has a entry for this kitchen counter product space, it will have a display, and be much like a CarPlay on the counter. There is so much more potential for a device like this than just a speaker with a microphone.
Any ideas for an objective test? I'll see what I can do about testing 2 of the 5 most popular services.
Here are a couple of ideas for an objective test, but as a non-expert here it's obviously woefully incomplete.
First, the most basic would be simple via one command/request that is immediately answered or satisfied (or one command, with the AI assistant asking for clarifications). These would be requests for weather, definitions, basic wikipedia stuff, creating
Second, there are commands that cluster together (my "list" example above), or ones that allow the user to add onto the command after the fact, so that they are executing multiple back and forth interactions with an end goal of finalizing some task.
You or others have better ideas or other insights?
I'll get on that later today (but remind me if you don't see a post by the end of the day, as I'll have to work it in when I find the time).
On the privacy front, Apple is certainly the leader w.r.t. their stated intentions, AND how they have performed publicly (e.g. FBI case). They have no end user advertising business models. They have taken approaches to data sharing that "may" impact their data sets for learning, in order to increase privacy. They have clearly taken the "privacy protection" side of the debate (and to my knowledge, are the only big tech/product company to do so).
I think it is fair to say, on whole, that the majority of population does not care much about either one (today). However, there is no guarantee that this view/position will remain the same in the future. There are certainly possible scenarios where significant security or privacy breaches occur that, individually or collectively, change the perception such that one or both are valued much more highly. Given the increasing connectivity of all devices, our reliance on these systems, and the increasing cyber threats, my view is that these scenarios are more likely than not. There once was a time when the risks of smoking were not taken seriously by the majority either. That changed.
Who would you rather be then? The company that has demonstrated decades of making this a priority, or companies which have flown free & loose, or even profited from the lack of controls. It seems that when these topics come up, it is only the downside to Apple w.r.t. privacy and it's impact on machine learning that is discussed, but the risks to not protecting privacy are never mentioned.