Why would Phil come out and say these speakers need a display to be truly functional? I don't believe the report about no display.
Because with Apple's solution if it wants to show you anything visual it sends it to your iPhone or iPad. With Amazon's original solution it has nowhere to send it. Hence the comment... perhaps.
From day one Amazon showed you both your queries and your answers, including attractive cover art and controls for music, on their mobile and web apps.
But maybe not everyone who would want Alexa would be using those apps. So Amazon needs a built-in display for the rest, the more casual users. Makes sense for Amazon. But pretty much everyone who Apple will sell a Siri Home/Office Assistant to will already have an iPhone. IPhone is the gateway drug into the Apple ecosystem these days.
Yeah it makes sense with Apple to get people deeper into the ecosystem. If it's anything like AirPods excellent wireless tech, it would be amazing. I envision it to be like a new AppleTV instead of a totally new device though. Apple can include mic and speakers into their AppleTV (not the remote) with improved Siri and send the visuals to TV or any of iDevices or any of the Macs if required.
A mic and speakers in the Apple TV? The device that sits near the TV and often in a cabinet? :sigh: There's a reason the remote has the mic for Siri and not the Apple TV itself.
I surprise you wouldn't think Apple would use far-field mic like Echo. Alexa can respond to voice commands from almost anywhere within earshot. And there’s no activation button to press. There is no reason AppleTV couldn't with multiple speakers.
They could do it, but it's far from the most ideal location. It's like having your home's thermometer above your stove and range. You can do it and will work great some of the time but it's not an ideal place for it.
My Apple TV isn't even in view. It doesn't need to be because of both a BT in the Siri Remote and CEC to the TV for volume control. I have a TV on the wall and no wires. Do you think that Cook, Ive and other people at Apple may have a similar setup to where they don't want to make the Apple TV the only way to get Siri in the home? This is the same issue with people saying that the Apple TV should double as a WiFi router without regard to placement of that router in the home.
I'm not against far field mics being included, but not speakers, and I'm against it being the de facto Siri Home solution when it's clearly the wrong move for countless reasons.
Why would Phil come out and say these speakers need a display to be truly functional? I don't believe the report about no display.
Because with Apple's solution if it wants to show you anything visual it sends it to your iPhone or iPad. With Amazon's original solution it has nowhere to send it. Hence the comment... perhaps.
From day one Amazon showed you both your queries and your answers, including attractive cover art and controls for music, on their mobile and web apps.
But maybe not everyone who would want Alexa would be using those apps. So Amazon needs a built-in display for the rest, the more casual users. Makes sense for Amazon. But pretty much everyone who Apple will sell a Siri Home/Office Assistant to will already have an iPhone. IPhone is the gateway drug into the Apple ecosystem these days.
No, Amazon doesn't need a built-in display. They've gone 2.5 years without a display on their Echo devices and even now with Echo Look it's not the primary I/O, but an auxiliary for some tasks.
Isn't Amazon releasing an echo with a screen at he end of June ?
Super news! Couldn't be happier. Portends great things with new commitment. With regards to Siri this shows Apple is all in. Whether or not it becomes the hub, it's the only product now whose "raison d'être" is Siri. There's no hiding intelligent assistant's incompetency anymore, as you can do when Siri is on iPhone or even the AirPods.
Why would Phil come out and say these speakers need a display to be truly functional? I don't believe the report about no display.
Because with Apple's solution if it wants to show you anything visual it sends it to your iPhone or iPad. With Amazon's original solution it has nowhere to send it. Hence the comment... perhaps.
From day one Amazon showed you both your queries and your answers, including attractive cover art and controls for music, on their mobile and web apps.
But maybe not everyone who would want Alexa would be using those apps. So Amazon needs a built-in display for the rest, the more casual users. Makes sense for Amazon. But pretty much everyone who Apple will sell a Siri Home/Office Assistant to will already have an iPhone. IPhone is the gateway drug into the Apple ecosystem these days.
No, Amazon doesn't need a built-in display. They've gone 2.5 years without a display on their Echo devices and even now with Echo Look it's not the primary I/O, but an auxiliary for some tasks.
Isn't Amazon releasing an echo with a screen at he end of June ?
Yes, as mentioned, but it's not the primary I/O. The implication that Echo hasn't worked for 2.5 years because it hasn't had a built-in display is absurd.
As someone else has said, "Siri Speaker" should be a charger that uses iPhone's brain while phone is docked. This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Siri as part of the iPhone was launched in 2011. It's hard for me to grasp why people think its backend would still be at 1.0 at this point.
If they're really NOW in manufacturing, they're shipping real soon (unless they are prototypes which would be unlikely). Apple doesn't stop up products 4 months in advance for sales, would make no sense at all to do that.
Perhaps there's two components - the hardware and a major Siri upgrade. Maybe they want to keep Siri under wraps until the iPhone launch.
Or perhaps some of the components used are difficult to manufacture and they want to get a head start on making them. I know it looks simple compared to the iPhone (with so much crammed into such a small device) but there might be some areas that are difficult. Like the new AI processor where yields aren't high enough yet.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Siri as part of the iPhone was launched in 2011. It's hard for me to grasp why people think its backend would still be at 1.0 at this point.
I agree. Especially considering at almost every WWDC keynote we get an update for what Siri can do in the next iOS. Siri's voices have been improved, what commands it can follow has grown, etc. Maybe the impression people get is that there is just a database somewhere that occasionally gets updated and that's about it? I'm probably as stumped as you are on the whole "1.0" idea.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Siri as part of the iPhone was launched in 2011. It's hard for me to grasp why people think its backend would still be at 1.0 at this point.
I agree. Especially considering at almost every WWDC keynote we get an update for what Siri can do in the next iOS. Siri's voices have been improved, what commands it can follow has grown, etc. Maybe the impression people get is that there is just a database somewhere that occasionally gets updated and that's about it? I'm probably as stumped as you are on the whole "1.0" idea.
The only leeway I give to that is out-of-sight-out-of-mind. Apple has done a bad job of letting people know new things they can try with Siri on a regular basis. Plus, I bet there are plenty of new Siri features I tried when they were first announced at a WWDC when I installed the betas and then never went back to because they weren't good. On top of that, Apple has no device or web portal to see your Siri queries and its responses so you can then respond back to Apple that the information is incorrect in some way.
Amazon has all of this. Every Friday I get a new email with a bunch of commands to test, including Skills, which are what Amazon calls their 3rd-party Alexa apps. For coming out of nowhere Amazon has done an amazing job with their Echo. I think Apple's ecosystem can best Alexa/Echo, but Amazon needs to be given credit for making something that I've used every day for 2.5 years. This year I even bought an Echo Dot to replace an alarm clock in my room so I can have no extraneous lights in my room. All other electronics are gone, too, just the Echo Dot to say "Alexa what time is it," "Alexa set alarm for…," and "Alexa play <name of ambient sound>," or "Alexa <name of mediation Skill>" to help fall asleep.
So there's not an onslaught of simultaneous product releases this fall, I'm guessing Apple will try to stagger the release of the new products. Maybe the Siri Home Speaker will debut in mid-July, the new Mac's/iPads in August and the new iPhones, Apple Watches and Apple TV in September. Wallet open and ready.
I'm not against far field mics being included, but not speakers, and I'm against it being the de facto Siri Home solution when it's clearly the wrong move for countless reasons.
The SIRI speaker better have very good microphones Because when this speaker is released there are going to be in head to head comparisons with the Echo. It better understand people better than the echo otherwise it will be an Emperor's new clothes embarrassment.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Siri as part of the iPhone was launched in 2011. It's hard for me to grasp why people think its backend would still be at 1.0 at this point.
Millions of people have had SIRI fail big time everytime they try something new (other than setting stupid timers) with SIRI so it natural to think that its no better than 2011. I don't see any better results recently.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Siri as part of the iPhone was launched in 2011. It's hard for me to grasp why people think its backend would still be at 1.0 at this point.
I agree. Especially considering at almost every WWDC keynote we get an update for what Siri can do in the next iOS. Siri's voices have been improved, what commands it can follow has grown, etc. Maybe the impression people get is that there is just a database somewhere that occasionally gets updated and that's about it? I'm probably as stumped as you are on the whole "1.0" idea.
This year I even bought an Echo Dot to replace an alarm clock in my room so I can have no extraneous lights in my room. All other electronics are gone, too, just the Echo Dot to say "Alexa what time is it," "Alexa set alarm for…," and "Alexa play <name of ambient sound>," or "Alexa <name of mediation Skill>" to help fall asleep.
Eh. I haven't had electronics in my bedroom for over a decade, other than my phone, which is the clock and alarm. I don't need to speak to it because the iphone has my weekly alarm schedules pre set. If I like in seconds I can pull up one of many apps, youtube videos, or local audio files of white noise or chill music, which I have piped to my airpods these days.
The echo just doesn't seem like a very compelling gizmo. Setting alarm clocks especially.
I'm hoping this proves true. It always seemed less than idea for a HomeKit control center to be on a portable device, and since Apple declined to make the Mac the control center, this seems like a much better option.
Genuine question, because to be honest I'm confused by all of this. I thought the AppleTV was suppose to be the bridge/control center for HomeKit. Are you saying there would now be 2 devices? One portable and one not?
Why can only device be the hub? Why can't either be the hub, or, in a mesh network, all work together? Are you expecting only one device to have access to the internet?
That's Apple's message not mine. Going by what Apple's explanation of ATV is and all these reports I'm confused.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Siri as part of the iPhone was launched in 2011. It's hard for me to grasp why people think its backend would still be at 1.0 at this point.
I agree. Especially considering at almost every WWDC keynote we get an update for what Siri can do in the next iOS. Siri's voices have been improved, what commands it can follow has grown, etc. Maybe the impression people get is that there is just a database somewhere that occasionally gets updated and that's about it? I'm probably as stumped as you are on the whole "1.0" idea.
This year I even bought an Echo Dot to replace an alarm clock in my room so I can have no extraneous lights in my room. All other electronics are gone, too, just the Echo Dot to say "Alexa what time is it," "Alexa set alarm for…," and "Alexa play <name of ambient sound>," or "Alexa <name of mediation Skill>" to help fall asleep.
Eh. I haven't had electronics in my bedroom for over a decade, other than my phone, which is the clock and alarm. I don't need to speak to it because the iphone has my weekly alarm schedules pre set. If I like in seconds I can pull up one of many apps, youtube videos, or local audio files of white noise or chill music, which I have piped to my airpods these days.
The echo just doesn't seem like a very compelling gizmo. Setting alarm clocks especially.
I don't see myself buying echo (or similar products by Apple) either, even though I like the concept. At the moment I already can play music directly from iPhone to my speaker through Siri and BT. So in a sense, I already can do most of what Alexa can with iPhones and wireless speakers. Things like asking time, setting alarm, playing X song, Y playlist, Z apps, etc. Rather than adding another device than do the same job, I would prefer declutter my bedroom.
I'm not against far field mics being included, but not speakers, and I'm against it being the de facto Siri Home solution when it's clearly the wrong move for countless reasons.
The SIRI speaker better have very good microphones Because when this speaker is released there are going to be in head to head comparisons with the Echo. It better understand people better than the echo otherwise it will be an Emperor's new clothes embarrassment.
This presupposes that Siri 2.0 makes a quantum leap in functionality.
I seem to remember an interview with an Apple exec a few years back who related a story about rolling out version 3 of Siri and that it was all behind the scenes and seamless. So, I think Siri 2.0 is well behind us.
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Siri as part of the iPhone was launched in 2011. It's hard for me to grasp why people think its backend would still be at 1.0 at this point.
Millions of people have had SIRI fail big time everytime they try something new (other than setting stupid timers) with SIRI so it natural to think that its no better than 2011. I don't see any better results recently.
I no longer want to engage people that go out of their way to troll or are too far out of their depth that they repeatedly write brand names as SIRI, MAC, and I-Phone. Instead I'm going to try to only engage in people that are open to learning and understanding.
I'm hoping this proves true. It always seemed less than idea for a HomeKit control center to be on a portable device, and since Apple declined to make the Mac the control center, this seems like a much better option.
Genuine question, because to be honest I'm confused by all of this. I thought the AppleTV was suppose to be the bridge/control center for HomeKit. Are you saying there would now be 2 devices? One portable and one not?
Why can only device be the hub? Why can't either be the hub, or, in a mesh network, all work together? Are you expecting only one device to have access to the internet?
That's Apple's message not mine. Going by what Apple's explanation of ATV is and all these reports I'm confused.
I don't recall Apple making that statement. I do recall Apple saying the Mac (or maybe the Mac/PC with iTunes) was the hub I'll see if I can find that clip in a bit. Now, it seems like the cloud is the hub with apps you have open and front and foremost showing up on other devices with the same content loaded, as well as shared clipboards, and even Back to My Mac has been working brilliantly for me, even with a VPN enabled when I'm on public WiFi.
edit: I'd argue that the Mac/PC isn't the hub any longer, but I'd also argue that it's no specific device. Each is just an appendage that does a specific task. Now, if you're talking a HomeKit hub then an iOS-based Apple TV or iOS-based Siri Home could take up that role for many of potential 3rd-party HomeKit capable devices that can connect to the Internet through these other devices or on their own, depending on the type of device.
Eh. I haven't had electronics in my bedroom for over a decade, other than my phone, which is the clock and alarm. I don't need to speak to it because the iphone has my weekly alarm schedules pre set. If I like in seconds I can pull up one of many apps, youtube videos, or local audio files of white noise or chill music, which I have piped to my airpods these days.
The echo just doesn't seem like a very compelling gizmo. Setting alarm clocks especially.
I don't see myself buying echo (or similar products by Apple) either, even though I like the concept. At the moment I already can play music directly from iPhone to my speaker through Siri and BT. So in a sense, I already can do most of what Alexa can with iPhones and wireless speakers. Things like asking time, setting alarm, playing X song, Y playlist, Z apps, etc. Rather than adding another device than do the same job, I would prefer declutter my bedroom.
Connecting an iPhone to an Echo via BT is just one of a million things you can do with an Echo/Alexa, but focusing on that feature, how do you connect your iPhone to your BT speakers? Tell me the steps you take, because I'm under the impression you have to go into Settings » Bluetooth » Click Connect on <name of BT speakers>. With the Echo, it's as easy as "Alexa connect." This means it's completely hands free, I don't have to have my iPhone out, and I don't have to stop whatever else I'm doing. It's incredibly seamless. I've never had that experience with Siri, but I do expect that to change once a Siri Home device hits the market because the larger, dedicated HW will allow for what Amazon has been offering for years and which simply isn't possible in a pocketable device.
Comments
My Apple TV isn't even in view. It doesn't need to be because of both a BT in the Siri Remote and CEC to the TV for volume control. I have a TV on the wall and no wires. Do you think that Cook, Ive and other people at Apple may have a similar setup to where they don't want to make the Apple TV the only way to get Siri in the home? This is the same issue with people saying that the Apple TV should double as a WiFi router without regard to placement of that router in the home.
I'm not against far field mics being included, but not speakers, and I'm against it being the de facto Siri Home solution when it's clearly the wrong move for countless reasons.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/05/09/amazon-unveils-the-230-echo-show-with-a-screen-for-calls-shipping-june-28/amp/
Unless you think the meaning of "version 3" (or however it was referred to) really meant 1.3 and the 2.0 you are mentioning would be a major version upgrade, similar to iOS full and point upgrades.
Perhaps there's two components - the hardware and a major Siri upgrade. Maybe they want to keep Siri under wraps until the iPhone launch.
Or perhaps some of the components used are difficult to manufacture and they want to get a head start on making them. I know it looks simple compared to the iPhone (with so much crammed into such a small device) but there might be some areas that are difficult. Like the new AI processor where yields aren't high enough yet.
Amazon has all of this. Every Friday I get a new email with a bunch of commands to test, including Skills, which are what Amazon calls their 3rd-party Alexa apps. For coming out of nowhere Amazon has done an amazing job with their Echo. I think Apple's ecosystem can best Alexa/Echo, but Amazon needs to be given credit for making something that I've used every day for 2.5 years. This year I even bought an Echo Dot to replace an alarm clock in my room so I can have no extraneous lights in my room. All other electronics are gone, too, just the Echo Dot to say "Alexa what time is it," "Alexa set alarm for…," and "Alexa play <name of ambient sound>," or "Alexa <name of mediation Skill>" to help fall asleep.
Wallet open and ready.
Millions of people have had SIRI fail big time everytime they try something new (other than setting stupid timers) with SIRI so it natural to think that its no better than 2011.
I don't see any better results recently.
The echo just doesn't seem like a very compelling gizmo. Setting alarm clocks especially.
I don't recall Apple making that statement. I do recall Apple saying the Mac (or maybe the Mac/PC with iTunes) was the hub I'll see if I can find that clip in a bit. Now, it seems like the cloud is the hub with apps you have open and front and foremost showing up on other devices with the same content loaded, as well as shared clipboards, and even Back to My Mac has been working brilliantly for me, even with a VPN enabled when I'm on public WiFi.
edit: I'd argue that the Mac/PC isn't the hub any longer, but I'd also argue that it's no specific device. Each is just an appendage that does a specific task. Now, if you're talking a HomeKit hub then an iOS-based Apple TV or iOS-based Siri Home could take up that role for many of potential 3rd-party HomeKit capable devices that can connect to the Internet through these other devices or on their own, depending on the type of device.