Oh look! Another pundit telling Apple it must go after the low end market to survive and compete. It’s all about going cheap isn’t it. Cheaper is better by definition, right? So along with a $150 iPhone, a $149 iPad, a $399 Mac with slots, now Apple must come up with a $180 digital assistant to compete with the Echo Dot, a $30 gadget. I’m truly sorry to be responding with extreme sarcasm but we’ve been listening to this go cheap drumbeat every tine a new product category becomes popular. Apple can’t survive without eventually going cheap.
1. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of PCs.
2. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of smartphones.
3. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of tablets.
4. Apple does not have the largest music and video streaming service.
5. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of digital assistants.
Yet Apple has managed to amass a $250 Billion pile of cash, and Apple has managed to rise to a market capitalization of around $900 Billion, all without competing at the low end of any of the markets it is in. And it did this by sticking to its principles of making high quality products that people love to use. So tell me again why Apple must go low to survive?
I wouldn't say they need to go cheap, just cheaper.
Or what, if they don't go cheaper? His list shows that Apple has been very, very successful not chasing the lower-end, and instead sticking to premium tier. What's different about this market? (honestly asking as I don't know myself)
How is buying several HomePods (regardless of price) going to be cheaper than using the preexisting iPhone (and possibly Watch) people already have. Amazon can sell you a speaker that works for one or two rooms in your house. Your iPhone goes everywhere with you. They don't really need to compete with Echo on that front. What they do need to do is work harder to make Siri more extensible depending on which devices you own.
Yep. My iPhone or iPads are sitting in my main rooms, even if I weren't wearing my Watch. And I gotta say, Siri on the AW3 is good...I love using it for HomeKit commands, setting scenes and turning on/off particular items.
Apple should have been in this market first. Siri is consistently terrible and it’s embarrasing for them that Amazon have come from no where to create this whole Echo/AI market. I just can’t understand what Apple and Google are doing with all their money and knowledge. They are both now playing catch up to Amazon? A shopping store.
I hope Apple intend to do something more than just look out the windows in their new campus.
Funny how Siri works awesomely for me and millions of others and does things I actually want. That does not include buying things from Amazon by voice.
Good for you and these millions.
But as a Dutch speaking Belgian, I can say that Srii in Dutch is useless, because it is does not understand 80% of what I am saying. Using Siri in English is much better in recognizing what I am saying, but Siri in English does not understand any Dutch or French names, which is quite painful for navigation and contact related apps. Asking Siri in English to play a song with a English title works fine, but that's about it. Very poor of Apple.
And by the way, Google Now on an iPhone does a much better job in understanding my Dutch, so it can't be that difficult.
If Siri really was not understanding 80% of what one says in Dutch Apple wouldn't release a Dutch Siri. So what Siri is not understanding according to your claim is probably not your utterance but your "intent". And misunderstanding or missing an intent is a subjective fact. Try to comply with the given Siri examples and you'll perform better in communicating your intent to Siri. That is you that must perform better in communicating intent, not Siri. That doesn't mean that Siri has no shortcomings or errors. As human communication is not devoid of errors or misunderstandings, communicating with a machine has its own but different limitations and compromises. Tell Siri a poem and expect it applauds, will never happen...
Siri will recognize French and English names in a Dutch sentence. But an English Siri cannot cope with Dutch place names and directions, this is a known fact with other languages and geographies as well. If you want to use Siri in local navigation you must set it to local language.
Oh look! Another pundit telling Apple it must go after the low end market to survive and compete. It’s all about going cheap isn’t it. Cheaper is better by definition, right? So along with a $150 iPhone, a $149 iPad, a $399 Mac with slots, now Apple must come up with a $180 digital assistant to compete with the Echo Dot, a $30 gadget. I’m truly sorry to be responding with extreme sarcasm but we’ve been listening to this go cheap drumbeat every tine a new product category becomes popular. Apple can’t survive without eventually going cheap.
1. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of PCs.
2. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of smartphones.
3. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of tablets.
4. Apple does not have the largest music and video streaming service.
5. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of digital assistants.
Yet Apple has managed to amass a $250 Billion pile of cash, and Apple has managed to rise to a market capitalization of around $900 Billion, all without competing at the low end of any of the markets it is in. And it did this by sticking to its principles of making high quality products that people love to use. So tell me again why Apple must go low to survive?
I wouldn't say they need to go cheap, just cheaper.
Or what, if they don't go cheaper? His list shows that Apple has been very, very successful not chasing the lower-end, and instead sticking to premium tier. What's different about this market? (honestly asking as I don't know myself)
A smartspeaker, arguably, is a very different beast than a PC or smartphone. The important thing isn't the hardware - though there are certain minimum standards - so much as the AI assistant attached to it, and how useful it is. If an Echo is cheaper to install, offers more functionality, and can still produce high-end audio if you connect to external speakers, that poses an obstacle.
I really hope they improve Siri. I love Apple but Siri is now the worst product they make. Like why does it give me a visual response to an auditory question. If I'm asking an auditory question in the car it's because I can't look at a visual response. It's sad when even Cortana is better then Siri. I'm hoping the HomePod will change all of this and make Siri what it can be.
I really hope they improve Siri. I love Apple but Siri is now the worst product they make. Like why does it give me a visual response to an auditory question. If I'm asking an auditory question in the car it's because I can't look at a visual response.
Apple should have been in this market first. Siri is consistently terrible and it’s embarrasing for them that Amazon have come from no where to create this whole Echo/AI market. I just can’t understand what Apple and Google are doing with all their money and knowledge. They are both now playing catch up to Amazon? A shopping store.
I hope Apple intend to do something more than just look out the windows in their new campus.
Stop with the trolling about Siri. You have no clue about Siri or its capabilities.
That's exactly how Apple VP's take sound criticism ("bad week"- Pavlov reaction) How Ballmerized can you be.
Coming from the most vile troll to infest these forums in recent times I take that as a compliment.
I really hope they improve Siri. I love Apple but Siri is now the worst product they make. Like why does it give me a visual response to an auditory question. If I'm asking an auditory question in the car it's because I can't look at a visual response. It's sad when even Cortana is better then Siri. I'm hoping the HomePod will change all of this and make Siri what it can be.
If what you ask returns a list of items as answer, Siri will display that list visually. What else do you expect? Read all the list items one by one? Then how will you choose your option while Siri still talks? By shouting "That one. No not that one, the previous one..." ???
Siri reads list items to you whan that makes sense: for example in turn-by-turn navigation.
Oh look! Another pundit telling Apple it must go after the low end market to survive and compete. It’s all about going cheap isn’t it. Cheaper is better by definition, right? So along with a $150 iPhone, a $149 iPad, a $399 Mac with slots, now Apple must come up with a $180 digital assistant to compete with the Echo Dot, a $30 gadget. I’m truly sorry to be responding with extreme sarcasm but we’ve been listening to this go cheap drumbeat every tine a new product category becomes popular. Apple can’t survive without eventually going cheap.
1. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of PCs.
2. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of smartphones.
3. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of tablets.
4. Apple does not have the largest music and video streaming service.
5. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of digital assistants.
Yet Apple has managed to amass a $250 Billion pile of cash, and Apple has managed to rise to a market capitalization of around $900 Billion, all without competing at the low end of any of the markets it is in. And it did this by sticking to its principles of making high quality products that people love to use. So tell me again why Apple must go low to survive?
I wouldn't say they need to go cheap, just cheaper.
Or what, if they don't go cheaper? His list shows that Apple has been very, very successful not chasing the lower-end, and instead sticking to premium tier. What's different about this market? (honestly asking as I don't know myself)
A smartspeaker, arguably, is a very different beast than a PC or smartphone. The important thing isn't the hardware - though there are certain minimum standards - so much as the AI assistant attached to it, and how useful it is. If an Echo is cheaper to install, offers more functionality, and can still produce high-end audio if you connect to external speakers, that poses an obstacle.
Agreed. Though there are excellent points to be made about the repeated, mistaken calls for market penetration, when it comes to home automation, it’s not penetration for its own sake. Unless Apple is going to get into making thermostats, garage door openers, power outlets, light fixtures, automatic window shades, ceiling fans, etc, we need market penetration to make HomeKit and Siri control viable.
Local processing will be needed before I accept such a thing in my life. You’re not going to record what few words I say and use them for your own purposes.
So much misinformation about Siri. To begin with most folks don't realize that Siri is by far the most used digital assistant in the world. Next, Siri knows by far the most languages. Next, remember that Siri is the only one that doesn't ilnvade your privacy and store everything that is said in front of it. Google stores everything you say for ever and links it to your universal identifier number that has where you drive, what you read, what you post, every photo you've ever taken, every website you've ever visited, etc., etc.,
I use Siri every day to set alarms, timers, get directions, read and send texts, play songs, set reminders time and geo based, etc., and she does an excellent job. And, there's no one better with sports.
SIri's not perfect, but most every head to head comparison shows that Siri is better except in search where Google is still tops, but Siri is overall most capable.
Apple should have been in this market first. Siri is consistently terrible and it’s embarrasing for them that Amazon have come from no where to create this whole Echo/AI market. I just can’t understand what Apple and Google are doing with all their money and knowledge. They are both now playing catch up to Amazon? A shopping store.
I hope Apple intend to do something more than just look out the windows in their new campus.
Funny how Siri works awesomely for me and millions of others and does things I actually want. That does not include buying things from Amazon by voice.
Good for you and these millions.
But as a Dutch speaking Belgian, I can say that Srii in Dutch is useless, because it is does not understand 80% of what I am saying. Using Siri in English is much better in recognizing what I am saying, but Siri in English does not understand any Dutch or French names, which is quite painful for navigation and contact related apps. Asking Siri in English to play a song with a English title works fine, but that's about it. Very poor of Apple.
And by the way, Google Now on an iPhone does a much better job in understanding my Dutch, so it can't be that difficult.
If Siri really were not understanding 80% of what one says in Dutch Apple wouldn't release a Dutch Siri. So what Siri is not understanding according to your claim is probably not your utterance but your "intent". And misunderstanding or missing an intent is a subjective fact. Try to comply with the given Siri examples and you'll perform better in communicating your intent to Siri. That is you that must perform better in communicating intent, not Siri. That doesn't mean that Siri has no shortcomings or errors. As human communication is not devoid of errors or misunderstandings, communicating with a machine has its own but different limitations and compromises. Tell Siri a poem and expect it applauds, will never happen...
Siri will recognize French and English names in a Dutch sentence. But an English Siri cannot cope with Dutch place names and directions, this is a known fact with other languages and geographies as well. If you want to use Siri in local navigation you must set it to local language.
You should not blame the messenger for Apple releasing a bad quality product. The Dutch version of Siri is what it is, a very poor product.
Some months ago I asked the Dutch version of Siri the route to 5 main streets of Antwerp, the biggest Dutch speaking city in Belgium: Of "Noorderlaan", "Amerkalei", "Desguinlei", "Meir", "Grote Steenweg", Siri only gave me a correct route for "Noorderlaan": that is an 80% miss. My intent was very clear and Siri did understand my intent, but not the names of the streets, making it completely useless for navigation purposes. One could wonder how the quality assurance happened, if it does not understand the main streets of Antwerp.
Google Now did 4 out of 5, only missing "Desguilei", which is the toughest one as is it the combination of a French part "Desguin" and a Dutch part "lei". And I could force Google Now to understand it if I pronounced "Deguinlei" as a full Dutch word. This trick did not help with Siri.
Oh look! Another pundit telling Apple it must go after the low end market to survive and compete. It’s all about going cheap isn’t it. Cheaper is better by definition, right? So along with a $150 iPhone, a $149 iPad, a $399 Mac with slots, now Apple must come up with a $180 digital assistant to compete with the Echo Dot, a $30 gadget. I’m truly sorry to be responding with extreme sarcasm but we’ve been listening to this go cheap drumbeat every tine a new product category becomes popular. Apple can’t survive without eventually going cheap.
1. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of PCs.
2. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of smartphones.
3. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of tablets.
4. Apple does not have the largest music and video streaming service.
5. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of digital assistants.
Yet Apple has managed to amass a $250 Billion pile of cash, and Apple has managed to rise to a market capitalization of around $900 Billion, all without competing at the low end of any of the markets it is in. And it did this by sticking to its principles of making high quality products that people love to use. So tell me again why Apple must go low to survive?
I wouldn't say they need to go cheap, just cheaper.
Or what, if they don't go cheaper? His list shows that Apple has been very, very successful not chasing the lower-end, and instead sticking to premium tier. What's different about this market? (honestly asking as I don't know myself)
A smartspeaker, arguably, is a very different beast than a PC or smartphone. The important thing isn't the hardware - though there are certain minimum standards - so much as the AI assistant attached to it, and how useful it is. If an Echo is cheaper to install, offers more functionality, and can still produce high-end audio if you connect to external speakers, that poses an obstacle.
Are security and privacy considered functionality? Echo offers less of these than Apple products. HomeKit is more secure than Alexa skills for home automation. And according to other reviews and articles (one I linked to earlier), Siri is as functional as the other two, but that each is better at different categories of query:
But again, what specifically are you saying will happen to Apple if they only chase the top tier and not the lower tier? That they will lose market share in the smart speaker market? If so, what past performance indicators say this will be a problem for Apple’s objectives of generating consumer satisfaction and profit?
Oh look! Another pundit telling Apple it must go after the low end market to survive and compete. It’s all about going cheap isn’t it. Cheaper is better by definition, right? So along with a $150 iPhone, a $149 iPad, a $399 Mac with slots, now Apple must come up with a $180 digital assistant to compete with the Echo Dot, a $30 gadget. I’m truly sorry to be responding with extreme sarcasm but we’ve been listening to this go cheap drumbeat every tine a new product category becomes popular. Apple can’t survive without eventually going cheap.
1. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of PCs.
2. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of smartphones.
3. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of tablets.
4. Apple does not have the largest music and video streaming service.
5. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of digital assistants.
Yet Apple has managed to amass a $250 Billion pile of cash, and Apple has managed to rise to a market capitalization of around $900 Billion, all without competing at the low end of any of the markets it is in. And it did this by sticking to its principles of making high quality products that people love to use. So tell me again why Apple must go low to survive?
I wouldn't say they need to go cheap, just cheaper.
Or what, if they don't go cheaper? His list shows that Apple has been very, very successful not chasing the lower-end, and instead sticking to premium tier. What's different about this market? (honestly asking as I don't know myself)
A smartspeaker, arguably, is a very different beast than a PC or smartphone. The important thing isn't the hardware - though there are certain minimum standards - so much as the AI assistant attached to it, and how useful it is. If an Echo is cheaper to install, offers more functionality, and can still produce high-end audio if you connect to external speakers, that poses an obstacle.
Agreed. Though there are excellent points to be made about the repeated, mistaken calls for market penetration, when it comes to home automation, it’s not penetration for its own sake. Unless Apple is going to get into making thermostats, garage door openers, power outlets, light fixtures, automatic window shades, ceiling fans, etc, we need market penetration to make HomeKit and Siri control viable.
Is there a shortage of manufacturers producing HomeKit compatible power outlets, light fixtures, bulbs, switches, window shades, door locks, etc today? Only item I can think of that doesn’t offer HK support is the Google-owned Nest, which I wouldn’t buy a second time.
So much misinformation about Siri. To begin with most folks don't realize that Siri is by far the most used digital assistant in the world. Next, Siri knows by far the most languages. Next, remember that Siri is the only one that doesn't ilnvade your privacy and store everything that is said in front of it. Google stores everything you say for ever and links it to your universal identifier number that has where you drive, what you read, what you post, every photo you've ever taken, every website you've ever visited, etc., etc.,
I use Siri every day to set alarms, timers, get directions, read and send texts, play songs, set reminders time and geo based, etc., and she does an excellent job. And, there's no one better with sports.
SIri's not perfect, but most every head to head comparison shows that Siri is better except in search where Google is still tops, but Siri is overall most capable.
"Google stores everything you say for ever and links it to your universal identifier number that has where you drive, what you read, what you post, every photo you've ever taken, every website you've ever visited, etc., etc., "
The fact that Google amasses and processes all that data is what makes it so effective. Nevermind the data it's collected the past couple of decades investing in search & maps. Data is the new oil with respect to cloud-based services.
There are some good points made, but no matter the cost, I don’t want a smart speaker in every room. I want the habits and commands I use to be with me everywhere. In the park, in the car, in the shower, while on a walk — everywhere. The only way to achieve that is not by making a smart speaker cheap — that will only get it in more rooms at that approach falls way short. The solution is clearly to make it a wearable. You glossed over the correct answer because it’s not good enough today on the watch. However, give it time and that solution will be far superior and your echo Dots will languish in the attic. The ONLY solution that allows you to be truly ‘always works’ and create real habits is by having your voice assistant be on your body and therefore be ALWAYS with you. Maybe someday that will be glasses or something in your shirt, but for now the answer is the watch. While we are still struggling with a small mic and battery life, we have trouble imagining that future when those issues fade away just like we had trouble imagining the smartphone in 1996.
I don’t have any trouble agreeing that Siri isn’t good enough — because it isn’t. But truly, other than some edge cases when you really dig into Google and Amazon assistants, they are far from good enough either. Just ask those that use these devices over time, the cases that are sticky tend to end up at that same core set that Siri is actually pretty good at — timers, music, weather, shopping lists, scores, etc. The big farce is all the skills that 3rd parties are developing. The vast majority are laughable from a real human mass market perspective.
There are tons of real wins easily achievable with voice assistants. Tech writers gets sucked into the next 12 months, but the real destination requires them to see several years down the road.
Apple should have been in this market first. Siri is consistently terrible and it’s embarrasing for them that Amazon have come from no where to create this whole Echo/AI market. I just can’t understand what Apple and Google are doing with all their money and knowledge. They are both now playing catch up to Amazon? A shopping store.
I hope Apple intend to do something more than just look out the windows in their new campus.
Funny how Siri works awesomely for me and millions of others and does things I actually want. That does not include buying things from Amazon by voice.
Good for you and these millions.
But as a Dutch speaking Belgian, I can say that Srii in Dutch is useless, because it is does not understand 80% of what I am saying. Using Siri in English is much better in recognizing what I am saying, but Siri in English does not understand any Dutch or French names, which is quite painful for navigation and contact related apps. Asking Siri in English to play a song with a English title works fine, but that's about it. Very poor of Apple.
And by the way, Google Now on an iPhone does a much better job in understanding my Dutch, so it can't be that difficult.
I’d imagine that Apple works very hard to improve the language recognition ability of Siri. If you’ve every worked on a software application that must support multiple written languages you’d know that this is a very difficult task due to the many subtle nuances in written language. Spoken language is even harder with accents, cross language infusion, local dialects, huge variation in human speech patterns, etc. So then there’s Dutch, which Wikipedia says about 30 million people speak natively. For a world wide population of 7.6 billion people that means Dutch is spoken by about 0.39% of the world’s population if my math is correct. Is it really fair to say that Siri has serious quality flaws because it does not recognize the nuances of a language spoken by 0.39% of speakers worldwide? Factoring in the mixing of French, Dutch, and increasingly, German influences in naming and terminology in Belgium only makes Siri’s job harder. If Google handles this challenge better than Apple, good for them. But to label Siri and its full feature set such as integration with applications and hands-free use of key communication capabilities as “poor quality” is not a fair assessment in my opinion. It isn’t perfect from a language recognition perspective in outlier cases, but this lack of perfection does not diminish the overall quality or usefulness of Siri for the several tasks it is designed to support.
SIRI is working well enough but she needs to have these two attributes to make a next step: 1. Contextual aware. If Apple wants SIRI to be natural, this needs to come ASAP. 2. Like all smart human being, SIRI needs to be able to understand 2 languages or more at the same time (the more the merrier)
What Apple did wrong for SIRI is almost lethal by thinking she’s a service and had a service guy, Eddy Cue, overlooked it. SIRI should be a system. She should be in someone’s hand who’s very bright & very visionary, not a corporate guy.
That said, Amazon hasn’t produce Echo sales or revenue numbers, and knowing the press will always looking for Apple killer & will cheer for any potential one to high heaven I’m still cautious on Amazon success here.
Apple should have been in this market first. Siri is consistently terrible and it’s embarrasing for them that Amazon have come from no where to create this whole Echo/AI market. I just can’t understand what Apple and Google are doing with all their money and knowledge. They are both now playing catch up to Amazon? A shopping store.
I hope Apple intend to do something more than just look out the windows in their new campus.
Funny how Siri works awesomely for me and millions of others and does things I actually want. That does not include buying things from Amazon by voice.
Oh look! Another pundit telling Apple it must go after the low end market to survive and compete. It’s all about going cheap isn’t it. Cheaper is better by definition, right? So along with a $150 iPhone, a $149 iPad, a $399 Mac with slots, now Apple must come up with a $180 digital assistant to compete with the Echo Dot, a $30 gadget. I’m truly sorry to be responding with extreme sarcasm but we’ve been listening to this go cheap drumbeat every tine a new product category becomes popular. Apple can’t survive without eventually going cheap.
1. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of PCs.
2. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of smartphones.
3. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of tablets.
4. Apple does not have the largest music and video streaming service.
5. Apple is not the largest manufacturer of digital assistants.
Yet Apple has managed to amass a $250 Billion pile of cash, and Apple has managed to rise to a market capitalization of around $900 Billion, all without competing at the low end of any of the markets it is in. And it did this by sticking to its principles of making high quality products that people love to use. So tell me again why Apple must go low to survive?
I wouldn't say they need to go cheap, just cheaper.
I tend to agree. $299 for 1 HomePod would be much better, $1100 for 4 HPs would be great. I'm undecided on if I will get a HomePod (undecided because I don't like the hiddenThrottling due battery level). Hopefully Apple decides to both change what they are doing and provide users with a choice.
I tried out 2 SONOS ONEs since they were the price (2 for $350) of the HomePod and liked it. I would like to know that they are planning to extend the HomePod family with a TV sound bar and a bigger unit like SONOS has. But either way I really want SIRI to work at a level better than Alexa which seems to understand me 95% when I ask her to change smart appliance settings.
Comments
Or what, if they don't go cheaper? His list shows that Apple has been very, very successful not chasing the lower-end, and instead sticking to premium tier. What's different about this market? (honestly asking as I don't know myself)
If Siri really was not understanding 80% of what one says in Dutch Apple wouldn't release a Dutch Siri. So what Siri is not understanding according to your claim is probably not your utterance but your "intent". And misunderstanding or missing an intent is a subjective fact. Try to comply with the given Siri examples and you'll perform better in communicating your intent to Siri. That is you that must perform better in communicating intent, not Siri. That doesn't mean that Siri has no shortcomings or errors. As human communication is not devoid of errors or misunderstandings, communicating with a machine has its own but different limitations and compromises. Tell Siri a poem and expect it applauds, will never happen...
Siri will recognize French and English names in a Dutch sentence. But an English Siri cannot cope with Dutch place names and directions, this is a known fact with other languages and geographies as well. If you want to use Siri in local navigation you must set it to local language.
Siri reads list items to you whan that makes sense: for example in turn-by-turn navigation.
I use Siri every day to set alarms, timers, get directions, read and send texts, play songs, set reminders time and geo based, etc., and she does an excellent job. And, there's no one better with sports.
SIri's not perfect, but most every head to head comparison shows that Siri is better except in search where Google is still tops, but Siri is overall most capable.
Some months ago I asked the Dutch version of Siri the route to 5 main streets of Antwerp, the biggest Dutch speaking city in Belgium: Of "Noorderlaan", "Amerkalei", "Desguinlei", "Meir", "Grote Steenweg", Siri only gave me a correct route for "Noorderlaan": that is an 80% miss. My intent was very clear and Siri did understand my intent, but not the names of the streets, making it completely useless for navigation purposes. One could wonder how the quality assurance happened, if it does not understand the main streets of Antwerp.
Google Now did 4 out of 5, only missing "Desguilei", which is the toughest one as is it the combination of a French part "Desguin" and a Dutch part "lei". And I could force Google Now to understand it if I pronounced "Deguinlei" as a full Dutch word. This trick did not help with Siri.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/alexa-vs-siri-vs-google,review-4772.html
But again, what specifically are you saying will happen to Apple if they only chase the top tier and not the lower tier? That they will lose market share in the smart speaker market? If so, what past performance indicators say this will be a problem for Apple’s objectives of generating consumer satisfaction and profit?
Is there a shortage of manufacturers producing HomeKit compatible power outlets, light fixtures, bulbs, switches, window shades, door locks, etc today? Only item I can think of that doesn’t offer HK support is the Google-owned Nest, which I wouldn’t buy a second time.
The fact that Google amasses and processes all that data is what makes it so effective. Nevermind the data it's collected the past couple of decades investing in search & maps. Data is the new oil with respect to cloud-based services.
I don’t have any trouble agreeing that Siri isn’t good enough — because it isn’t. But truly, other than some edge cases when you really dig into Google and Amazon assistants, they are far from good enough either. Just ask those that use these devices over time, the cases that are sticky tend to end up at that same core set that Siri is actually pretty good at — timers, music, weather, shopping lists, scores, etc. The big farce is all the skills that 3rd parties are developing. The vast majority are laughable from a real human mass market perspective.
There are tons of real wins easily achievable with voice assistants. Tech writers gets sucked into the next 12 months, but the real destination requires them to see several years down the road.
1. Contextual aware. If Apple wants SIRI to be natural, this needs to come ASAP.
2. Like all smart human being, SIRI needs to be able to understand 2 languages or more at the same time (the more the merrier)
What Apple did wrong for SIRI is almost lethal by thinking she’s a service and had a service guy, Eddy Cue, overlooked it. SIRI should be a system. She should be in someone’s hand who’s very bright & very visionary, not a corporate guy.
That said, Amazon hasn’t produce Echo sales or revenue numbers, and knowing the press will always looking for Apple killer & will cheer for any potential one to high heaven I’m still cautious on Amazon success here.
Get a grip.
I tried out 2 SONOS ONEs since they were the price (2 for $350) of the HomePod and liked it. I would like to know that they are planning to extend the HomePod family with a TV sound bar and a bigger unit like SONOS has. But either way I really want SIRI to work at a level better than Alexa which seems to understand me 95% when I ask her to change smart appliance settings.