Amazon WorkSpaces - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/workspaces <comment><USER2> So, I gave this a try, if you are interested.

The UX for the account setup and workspace admin is pretty rough, feels MVP (but it works).

It took about 30 minutes for my machine to be provisioned. Then I got an email. Downloaded the OS X client, about 30 megs.

Launched. Took about a minute to login and get my machine booted.

GUI performance for small area updates is great, dragging a window not so great. It is usable, but not fluid.

My connection is showing 70Mbps/10Mbps with 12ms latency on speedtest.net

Using a IE. Oh this is interesting – when going to Google, I am at google.tw

Where is this machine hosted? Showing an IP of 220.127.116.11 (US), odd...

Visiting Youtube, Youtube.tw comes up, video is a bit choppy, audio is fine.

Visiting nytimes.com. Loading is a bit slow, scrolling is very choppy. Text selection is very fast.

Downloaded some CSV, opens in Excel. This is fast, and very usable.

Disconnect.

Log back in, everything is just as I left it (of course).

\--- continued ---

I download the client for the iPad, enter the registration code, and login.

There is a 13 part tutorial on gestures (way too many for me to remember) Fortunately you can drag a menu of commands from the left side easily.

I play around a bit, it works fine.

Now I login from my computer, oh bummer, my iPad session was disconnected.

You can only be logged in from device at a time. That is too bad. It would be nice to share.

<comment><USER3> >You can only be logged in from device at a time. That is too bad. It would be nice to share.

I wonder if this is to do with licensing.

>Using a IE. Oh this is interesting – when going to Google, I am at google.tw

>Where is this machine hosted? Showing an IP of 22.214.171.124 (US), odd...

I bet Google's GeoIP DB has some flaws, and this is the result of one of them.

<comment><USER4> Google recently thinks I'm in India and has been serving me up Indian YouTube adds recently. I work in Beijing using a Japanese proxy, so I don't really get how that works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've scratched my head on what exactly the use-case for this is. I'm going to need a computer of some sort to access my remote _anyways_. So what's the point?

Then I remember the remote freelance job my wife had for a while. They mailed her the employment paperwork, she filled it out, once they processed it they sent her a remote desktop URL, username and password and voila she was "at work". A day or two later she had everything she needed installed by the IT staff and off she went. She never actually went into the office, even once, and never met any of the employees there face-to-face. When she completed her contract they simply nuked the account she was using and reclaimed the licenses. They didn't ship her a laptop to work from and she didn't have to ship it back. If she had ever needed to go into the office, they could have let her use an aging extra machine with Remote Desktop to get back to work. Not a single piece of the company's "property" ever needed to come in contact with my wife's home computer and if she was waiting for her work computer to do something she could just minimize the RDP client and do something else.

I have no idea what they would have been paying for the Terminal server on their end, I've heard it runs north of $100k/year, and this service seems to be competing with _that_.

<comment><USER6> This is going to be big for Chromebooks, I suspect.

<comment><USER7> And IT departments that don't want company data to ever exist on the laptops. We're back to dumb terminals and mainframes.

<comment><USER8> This made me laugh - ".. or to meet IT requirements to not have company data on end user devices"

Ya, just put it on Amazon's servers instead. That's way better.

<comment><USER6> Isn't it? Amazon's server team is way better than your company's.

<comment><USER8> I don't usually wave the flag, but no, they aren't. They might be comparable, but not better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It appears WorkSpaces requires a client which is not available for Linux desktop users nor ChromeOS. :/

[http://docs.aws.amazon.com/workspaces/latest/adminguide/clie...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/workspaces/latest/adminguide/client_help.html)

<comment><USER10> Android-x86 VM?

Hm. I wonder if anyone is doing the work to get Android apps runnable on desktop Linux systems. Some googling suggests that at this point, Android-x86 can more or less run in a chroot already...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is there something new about WorkSpaces?

Here's a discussion about it from a few months ago [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726962)

<comment><USER12> It just went GA today: [http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2014/03/amazon-workspaces- now-ava...](http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2014/03/amazon-workspaces-now- available.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds a lot similar to what people used to do back in the day with a terminal connected to a central computer. Technology seems to move in circles.

Anyway if it can beat my horrible corporate VDI I am all for it. Although Initech probably wont be switching to some fancy new AWS anytime soon.

<comment><USER14> And echoed in the 90s by the likes of the Sun Ray series of thin clients.

Wait…thin clients…virtual reality goggles…are we back in 1995 again?

<comment><USER13> Exactly the circle is completing itself again.

I can remember doing a case study in College where Larry Ellison was trying to push thin clients to companies sometime in the 90s.

<comment><USER15> It's not a circle, but extruded along a timeline represents more of a spiral/helix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There appears to be a pretty big gap between the pricing of the WorkSpaces Windows machines and the same(?) machines purchased through EC2. For example, an m3.medium is 1 vCPU, 3.75GiB and is ~$126/mo. The Standard WorkSpaces machine is 1 vCPU, 3.75GiB and $35/mo.

Are there reasons not to move Windows workloads from EC2 to WorkSpaces?

<comment><USER17> Maybe the impending EC2 price drop (predicted by many in light of the new Google cloud pricing) will bring it in line.

<comment><USER17> They just announced the new pricing [0]. It's much cheaper, but still about 2x the price of the WorkSpaces. The only difference I can see is the local storage: 4 GB SSD on EC2 vs. 50 GB on WorkSpaces. I have to assume WorkSpaces is using a spinning HDD in that case.

[0] [http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/effective- april-2014/](http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/effective-april-2014/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cloud Desktops could be how next generation Desktop computing looks like, i am just not sure how fast we can get over latency and bandwidth limits, especially if you consider coming standards like 4K+, so in the meantime it will probably evolve the way it already does with desktop apps that talk to the cloud but run locally. But for normal office work, eg, Ms Office, this is already fine.

<comment><USER19> The network is what kills this idea before it leaves the womb.

Everyday ISPs/Content Providers are constricting the pipes more and more.

All the physical equipment and meatspace savings from this will vanish[shift rather] and the network costs will take their place.

<comment><USER20> I seriously doubt this claim that the network costs will be at all significant.

<comment><USER19> So the access providers will change their behavior on the basis of your serious doubt?

Will they add new infrastructure and absorb that cost without price increases?

Netflix's issues with ISPs is actually a counter example to my position?

As time goes on, we'll use less data rather than more?

Video[GUIs are video] require a lot of transfers even when you have good connections/protocols. I do remote work[a lot] and I have a typical uplink and it stinks. I use CLI/SSHFS as much as possible to avoid lags and it is still laborious.

<comment><USER18> Still on the other hand things like Onlive/Gaikai realtime game streaming are really quite impressive and responsive. But they obviously had cost issues as well and it remains to be seen when that experience would be possible in real 1080p at a high bitrate. Not even thinking about 4K here...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It looks like it'd be handy if I could spin up a Mac or Windows desktop to test stuff with, but it looks like you can't connect to it from Linux. Too bad.

<comment><USER22> VMware View uses the same protocol (Teradici PCoIP) and has a linux client. Have any VMware View linux users here tried to connect to Amazon Workspaces?

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure the View and AWS clients will not interoperate. Teradici does have the technology so it's a question of how important it is for Amazon to deliver a Linux client.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "WorkSpaces provide users with the Windows 7 Experience"

I don't really want to have a Windows 7 Experience.. wonder why they don't provide a linux desktop.

<comment><USER25> I agree...I'd like a Linux desktop as well. However, what client software on the Linux side performs as well as RDP? How can I get that same performance?

VNC certainly doesn't do it. NX is about as close as I've come, and it can still be laggy at times. I think Spice may be the future on this side, but not sure.

For those of you who run remote Linux desktops in the cloud and actually use a UI, how do you do it and get an adequate desktop experience (sound, video, etc)?

<comment><USER26> You can actually use RDP for Linux. Most of what I do is server stuff, so this really hasn't been a concern of mine, but recently I was playing with the custom cryptocurrency mining distro, BAMT. You connect to it via RDP client (in this case, I used Microsoft's OSX client). I can't say anything about performance relative to VNC/NX, however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> How much bandwith is necessary to run their client per user?

I am thinking about travelling through south-east asia and/or africa for a few months, would this (in addition to ssh) be viable for working/freelancing from remote locations with throwaway hardware?

<comment><USER28> Latency might not be great in SE Asia or Africa. The blog post linked elsewhere in these comments indicates that this is currently served up only from Virginia and Oregon.

<comment><USER29> You would be surprised how fast internet can be even in remote parts of Laos. I use similar software and was easily able to use my workstation from there. I agree though that it can be hit and miss...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What they need to do is add a way to access the remote machine without Windows/Mac. Something as simple as "use this usb to boot your computer and enter your credentials to login to your remote machine".

<comment><USER31> When there's a Linux client, you could do this easily by adapting any one of several distros.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The video says "to replace the support and security headaches of physical desktop machines" but wouldn't you still have to worry about the end device's security? Especially so in this case since the user likely has admin access on it?

What if the device a user is logging in from has a keylogger/screencapper that captures everything they do with their 'cloud desktop'? What if they contract malware that specifically pulls data from the 'cloud desktop' (i.e. from a targeted attack)?

</comment><comment><USER33> Hmm; one interesting bit is WorkSpaces Sync - [https://sync.amazonworkspaces.com/](https://sync.amazonworkspaces.com/)

At first glance it looks something like Dropbox with S3 as the storage backend. They suggest it being used to keep files in sync between a standard PC and a WorkSpace. I wonder if it can be used without the WorkSpace?

<comment><USER34> Yes, the AWS s3 cli [1] has a --sync option that does that.

[1] [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/s3/sync.html](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/s3/sync.html)

Edit: Actually this isn't the dropbox functionality. For that you'd have to wrap it in an inotify loop:

"while true; do inotifywait -r -e modify . && aws s3 sync <local> <s3 bucket>; done"

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> OS/360 is back!

<comment><USER8> It never left

[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Z/OS](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Z/OS)

It's just not _cool_

<comment><USER35> Sure, I just meant the idea being mainstream again.

I know a bit of the mainframe world. One of my tasks at my first job was to do OS/400 daily backups.

<comment><USER8> Brush up your resume, you're going to be hot again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I didn't get this when it was first announced and don't get it now. $600/y will get you your own hardware and software licenses. Access with RDC or VNC. Hardware can easily last 3 years so now you're looking at $600 vs $1800 (excluding power, bandwidth and IT staff). Why would anyone use this?

<comment><USER37> I have a use case. It's 'niche' but that's where I have been working for almost a year.

In the legal field there are a scatload of organizations that process data. Data is moved by FTP or SFTP. It's organized by case and/or client.

The directories can hold hundreds - or thousands - of files, compressed file sizes nearly 500mb are not uncommon.

To _manage_ this mess o' bytes users are given 'a windows server', login by RDP. The server has (the ones I've seen) a connection via ISCSI to a 'drive' that is (tada) the FTP repository. Move, delete, rename using Windows Explorer.

The several that I've seen are vmware instances. Living - I guess - on a dedicated vmware cluster.

This is _made_ for uses like that.

The _heck_ with paying for, and maintaining, an expensive machine. Boot up a workspace, create the user. Bill them cost. When you're done, shut it down.

This is good because we, ourselves, are aiming to be a data processing org (in part) but we have to do it better and cheaper. Which we can, with workspace.

Assuming, of course, that we can have some control over what is installed, and connections to our already existing ebs volumes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> One thing to note that took me awhile to find - Workspaces requires installation of local client software to function, so if your devices or computers have software install restrictions you will want to work with your infrastructure / change review folks to get it approved before buying.

</comment><comment><USER39> Yay, this is a big step towards making DaaS a reality. The Teradici PCoIP client they use improves the user experience a lot, especially for video. Now just waiting for an API so we can incorporate Workspaces into Leostreamdesktops.com as another DaaS option.

<comment><USER40> According to Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_as_a_service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_as_a_service)) "Daas" also means "data as a service". Something tells me you meant "desktop as a service", i.e. desktop virtualization, though?

I guess my point is that "*aas" acronyms are (besides ugly, but that's just my opinion) not always very clear; please consider writing what you mean at least the first time before using an acronym.

Don't assume everyone knows what you know, especially for rather new and up- in-the-air technology terminology such as this.

<comment><USER41> Ambiguity as a Service (AaaS)™

<comment><USER42> We May Provide Whatever You Need!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I work for an IT company, and this is very cool. Especially if they make good strides in backups and management (application deployment, etc..).

Much better than buying $100K of hardware for a Terminal Server, and paying $100K of support a year to maintain it ;)

<comment><USER44> Nobody spends $100K / yr on "a Terminal Server", either for hardware, software licensing, or support. If you are then you're not going to manage this "solution" any better, or you're going to be at a scale where Amazon's offering will be leaps and bounds more expensive.

<comment><USER43> Well okay, it's not just a terminal server. But the purpose is for several dozens of users to connect with their "think clients."

It's a virtual host that has a terminal server + a few other servers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I (didn't) launch a similar service in 2000. I just wrote about it here:

[http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/officemaster/#content](http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/officemaster/#content)

</comment><comment><USER46> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726962)

</comment><comment><USER47> Am I the only one that read this and thought, "Brilliant! Amazon's getting into co-working!" From AWS to Co-working to buying AirBnB, Seamless and Uber (I'm spackling) Amazon could own a startup kid's life from cradle to grave.

</comment><comment><USER48> Pardon my ignorance, for an individual on a mac that wants to use this, what's the difference between this and a Windows instance on EC2? I'm assuming this product is for managing teams, versus my solo EC2 instance?

</comment><comment><USER3> Argh. It's a shame that the ReactOS "Thorium Core" Kickstarter didn't get funded. It would have been nice to see ROS developed to a point where it'd be a good OS to virtualise (for free).

</comment><comment><USER49> I wish I could spin up a Mac desktop to test some stuff with htis. Anyone have any inside info re: whether they have plans for Mac WorkSpaces?

<comment><USER26> Probably not, as they currently offer no OSX-backed instances.

Even if they did, Apple restricts OSX to Apple hardware. There are a few companies out there that offer this, but typically you'll pay $25-40 for a fairly anemic setup (say 1-1.5 GB). This is likely a direct product of the hardware cost, as opposed to the ability to use commodity hardware for Windows/Linux.

<comment><USER49> Do you happen to know the name of the vendor that does this?

<comment><USER26> I Googled a received a few results - I want to say the terms I used were "osx vps"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50>
        (T_T) Waaaaah:

        REGION UNSUPPORTED

        WorkSpaces is not available in Asia Pacific (Tokyo).
        Please select another region.

</comment><comment><USER51> Why did Amazon build a new replacement for Desktops, in 2014, and package it with IE 9?

</comment><comment><USER52> Microsoft execs would be kicking themselves for not coming into this market first.

<comment><USER31> Except Azure VDI is already a thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Id love to have a workspace app on my smart tv though...

</comment><comment><USER54> Is there a free demo to try?

<comment><USER55> It says free trial but then asks for $35 per month for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> IE9?

</comment><comment><USER57> and this is why I left IT</comment>


Amazon Echo Show - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.com/echoshow <comment><USER2> People are missing this:

"With the Alexa App, conversations and contacts go where you go. When you're away from home, use the app to make a quick call or send a message to your family's Echo. Alexa calling and messaging is free—to get started download the Alexa App."

Alexa is now in the messaging and communication game.

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/09/amazon-enables-free- calls-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/09/amazon-enables-free-calls-and- messages-on-all-echo-devices-with-alexa-calling/)

<comment><USER3> Are we ever going to see unity between these services, or are we doomed to have little walled-off fiefdoms forever?

A phone number works anywhere in the world, to anywhere in the world, with anyone who has a phone. All e-mail providers work with each other. I don't care who you're with, and I wouldn't even have to know except it's usually part of the address. SMS works no matter which provider we both have.

It feels like we're taking huge steps backwards. Instead of sending a message to a phone number or e-mail address, I'll use iMessage or Google Hangouts or Skype or Slack or.... Video call? We can do FaceTime or Hangouts or Skype or....

Will these things start interoperating with each other eventually, or are we just doomed forever?

<comment><USER4> FWIW, email only sorta interoperates...try running your own mail server and unless you get all the elements of server reputation exactly right, your email will probably not get delivered to people using the large email providers. Thanks to spammers, we've allowed our open, interoperable standard to be much more closed.

And SMS is also frustratingly non-universal. After years of having cell service with one of the large providers, I switched to Fi last year since I was going to be out of the country a lot. The biggest annoyance has been most short code SMS not working. Each SMS shortcode is only supported on a provider-by-provider basis.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that even your examples of open, interoperable protocols are instances where we've traded some of that open interoperability for convenience.

<comment><USER5> I have my own mail server and am running it from my home server for 15 years now, I did not notice having issues with delivery to large providers and I did not set up SPF, DKIM or whatever currently you supposed to use (I do have TLS enabled though).

I do have some mailing lists running from it, so it's possible it helped me that their users are making sure mails from it doesn't end up in junk folder.

Anyway, I would encourage anyone to run their own mail server, to prevent large provider doing what you're mentioning. Google already did this with XMPP. They made GTalk interconnected with rest of XMPP server, but as soon as they got a large base they disconnected from the rest and made their own proprietary network.

<comment><USER6> Same experience here. No special setup, no SPF or DKIM, and yet no particular challenge in sending e-mail. I feel the challenges of operating a mail server are often exaggerated. But then, I don't tend to send spam.

<comment><USER7> Wow, I am surprised. I recently had to migrate my mailserver from my datacenter to the cloud. I lost the original IP address as a result. The new IP address got flagged immediately on gmail and everywhere else. I setup SPF and DKIM, that seems to fix the issues with the big guys. However on comcast and others I still got throttled for quite a bit. i had to request csi.cloudmark.com to unblock the ip..

<comment><USER3> I wonder if you happened to inherit an IP address from someone who was up to something less than savory.

<comment><USER8> Oftentimes, poorly-managed VMs / VPSes get infected with scripts / botnet software and start blasting out spam. It takes a long time for IP reputation to recover, esp. under the same owner info on the netblock.

Regarding inbox deliverability from dynamic IPs (like you'd have with a residential connection), it might work sometimes for short messages with no attachments to people you've corresponded with before, but I wouldn't expect general deliverability to be very good. You have the same problem with botnet infections / malware-based spam here as well; home PCs are much more likely to get infected with that kind of stuff (though WordPress exploits are VERY common on servers), so many people running mail servers will just straight up block dynamic IPs from big ISPs and assume that nothing of value was lost. Personally, for low-volume mail such as what a home server might send regarding maintenance or alerts, I'd recommend using a service like mailgun and hooking up to that with SMTP. It's a lot easier than running your own mail server, you won't have to deal with inbound spam if you're only sending, it works well with minimal setup, they guide you through each step, etc etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A few thoughts:

\- This is way less creepy-looking than the Amazon Look ([https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Hands-Free-Camera-Style- Assistan...](https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Hands-Free-Camera-Style- Assistant/dp/B0186JAEWK)), but it is actually very similar.

\- It is great to add a screen to the Echo. Just more feedback on interacting with it, and possibility to watch YouTube, Netflix, etc. casually.

\- It doesn't have the same cool minimalism as the Echo. The Echo sits on my counter and looks nice when not in use. I think this one looks much clunkier.

\- I definitely want to try one.

<comment><USER10> I wonder, why go this route instead of creating a device to add to your TV?

My echo is right next to the TV.

<comment><USER11> They actually already have that. The Fire TV Stick has "Alexa" in it, but you have to use the push-to-talk remote instead of having an always-on mic as in the Echo.

<comment><USER12> It would be nice not to need a remote, like with Kinect but with better mics and voice recognition

<comment><USER13> Part of the problem with that is that if the TV isn't on the right input then you won't be able to receive the response. HDMI Control to change the input exists, but with false positives it might be a bad thing still because it would interrupt whatever you're doing to listen and go "i couldn't understand the question i was asked". I'd quickly disable it if it was doing that.

<comment><USER14> I power my chromecast directly and it uses HDMI-CEC to automatically turn on the TV. It works pretty well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Its interesting to see how _fast_ Amazon can come to market with these new hardware pieces. I guess the fallout of the Amazon Phone at least had some lessons learned in hardware suppliers, etc... I realize they're throwing hardware out there prior to seeing what the software can do with it, but I think its necessary to get people locked in.

I like their approach from the business perspective. Give the people a voice controlled speaker. Give them a remote! Now, give them a voice-controlled camera! Now, give them a voice-controlled screen! Soon, give them <insert novel sensor> and let them go hands free! Rinse-repeat.

<comment><USER16> Amazon has been in the hardware game for awhile now with the various Kindle devices. They entered that market, deployed enough SKUs to satisfy nearly everyone out there, and started shifting outside the e-reader product to tablets, etc.

Apple is the juggernaut and is likely to overthink its product offerings and how it affects the ecosystem of existing devices. Just like the Kindle, Amazon is ready to flood the market with SKUs to see what sticks. They're building their brand in hardware very quickly and leading the market with the strongest connected home ecosystem.

<comment><USER17> > Amazon has been in the hardware game for awhile now with the various Kindle > devices.

Not just the Kindle devices, but also a growing range of Amazon Basics store- brand products, including batteries, headphones, Bluetooth speakers, paper shredders, towels and sheets, yoga mats, ... the list goes on and on. While many are undoubtedly existing products with the Amazon name stamped on them, Amazon has generally been building a lot of experience working with suppliers/manufacturers.

See: [https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics/](https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was battling back and forth FOR A MONTH with their skill certification approval team for a skill update that would allow customers to call people by name, where in the first version it was only by phone number.

They would fail the certification because apparently people didn't know how to test, or used fake numbers to make phone calls and complained the call would not connect, or the certificate validation (that was working before) would fail, etc. All sorts of things. VERY frustrating process. I wouldn't make any change, submit the skill again for certification and get different results.

Now they announce their own calling feature, a week after finally approving our update.

<comment><USER19> Kind of sad for you guys, but at the same time not so surprising - it is the fate of every useful platform add-on to be integrated into the platform over time. And calling people by name seems like a low-hanging fruit for Amazon.

<comment><USER18> Yes... also, when people started talking about an Echo device that could allow phone calls to happen I sent them an e-mail asking if we could have early access to develop our skill using the new device capabilities and asking if they had a beta program, their only response was: we don't comment on rumors.

Silly me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The Amazon Echo Show seems very much like a telescreen, straight out of Orwell's 1984: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen)

<comment><USER21> Agreed. I can't possibly see the value in these integrated devices for anyone but Amazon. Beyond that, these things can and will be hacked immediately.

<comment><USER22> "will be hacked immediately" is a bit of a bold claim.

<comment><USER23> I would be surprised if this device were not already compromised by our government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I must be one of those old farts who prefers privacy over convenience.

I do not want what amounts to an always-on black-box surveillance device in my home and I simply do not understand why other people think it is okay. I honestly don't.

Down with this sort of thing!

<comment><USER2> Do you own a cellphone with a camera and microphone?

<comment><USER25> No, and unless I have to some type of on-call job in the future, I never will. POTS works fine for telephony, and my computer is _much_ faster, has better features, is far easier to read, and isn't _de facto_ controlled by Apple|Google.

While portable devices can be a useful tool, far too many people are addicted to the dopamine hit they get by hitting "refresh", and/or distracted by shiny tech baubles.

<comment><USER26> Good on you. I've gone back and forth between having a smart device and not, and while I've been on the move for a while and thus benefitted from having one, will likely go back to pre-smartphone hardware once settled.

Other than net browsing (which I find woefully underpowered on mobile even today) and listening to music, I rarely if ever use this thing's auxillary functions. Most of the "defaults" are just clutter reminiscent of the pre- smartphone vendor days (complete with the "but look, you can make them less visible, just move them around!"). Can relate on the distraction bit as well, as that used to be a bigger problem for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Any echo owners feel like they would get additional value out of this?

90% of my interaction with my standard echo has been "what's the weather".

Even when I want visual controls for music, I'd rather pull out my phone than walk over to a screen.

<comment><USER28> I think the biggest benefit is video calling. Get your parents one, get one yourself, schedule a video call with them once a week (or whatever). Easier than Facetime since you don't have to hold up the phone. Reminds me of the videophones in the Starship Troopers movie.

<comment><USER29> Surely two phone stands would be cheaper. You can even initiate the call with voice if you really don't want to touch anything.

<comment><USER30> Neither of my parents (70+) can handle smart phones. They get computers, TVs and other personal electronics just fine, but iOS and Android are both basically unusable for them. Both OSes have too many distractions and too many interaction choices, so the phone is always doing something unexpected and confusing. I've occasionally talked them through doing a hangouts call on a computer and they've loved seeing their grandkids on the video, but the smartphone interface has kept them from doing regular video calls. However, my father figured out how to turn off my TV and turn on lights in about 5 minutes, without being taught, using my Echo Dot.

It's not about not "wanting to touch anything" \- the voice interface is slower and less flexible than a visual interface in a lot of ways, but it's also more consistent and easier to memorize key interactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It continues to surprise me how far ahead of them Apple is letting Amazon/Google get in this area. I've always been a big fan of Apple (despite their closed ecosystem), but have to admit that Amazon is seriously outplaying them on this front. Hopefully Apple surprises me and comes up with something even more innovative that can compete.

<comment><USER32> When I saw this, I actually had the opposite reaction.

I remember when I first saw an iPod Nano with the color screen and the scroll wheel that magically scrolled up and down by just moving your finger around it without actually turning a wheel. It seemed like magic. Same thing when I first saw the iPhone/iPod Touch. Apple's products were very carefully designed and only released when they were perfect, and very rarely failed to wow you.

Amazon on the other hand, always seems to rush things to market and then see what sticks. I understand that this is largely their ethos, but when it comes to Amazon hardware, I've found myself pretty cynical towards it because they've released so much poorly-executed crap over the years. Even with Alexa, I like many others, find that it's pretty much useless for anything beyond playing music or setting a timer.

Having an Echo, I saw this and my first thought was "meh." I have a feeling that if Apple released a similar product category, that wouldn't be the case.

<comment><USER33> My latest gen Apple TV wants to disagree with you. As does my wife's first gen Apple Watch ... both are magical turds IMHO.

<comment><USER32> I don't own an Apple Watch, but I know lots of people who do and love them.

But in any case, I think the last ten years of iPhone and iPad releases do somewhat agree with me.

<comment><USER34> So if we only look at Apple's successful products, we can agree that Apple's only makes "very carefully designed" things..

<comment><USER32> I think that holds for pretty much all of their products, successful or not.

But if you want to argue that Amazon is a better product company than Apple, then have at it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I feel like this entire product could be a Chromecast-esque dongle that connects to a TV. Having a personal dashboard would actually be quite useful, but this seems like they want to sell appliances not experiences.

Maybe they've gone with this form factor because of the 2x 2" speakers? But why would I want that when it could be plugged directly into my home audio setup?

Or maybe it's so they can include a touchscreen? But I thought the whole point was hands-free conversational interaction?

I guess I'm missing the point of this. Why would I, as a normal consumer, get this instead of a regular Amazon Echo?

<comment><USER36> I think there are certainly reasons to have your "hands-free conversational interaction" device also be able to show you things.

It seems like the big pitch they're making right now is on communications, but there are loads of reasons why I can imagine it being useful. Most mornings, I ask Alexa about the weather. Usually, the voice response is all I need, but occasionally, there are storms in the forecast, and there's a big difference between "60% chance of thunderstorms" and "here's the radar image".

Traffic is another good example. You want to know that there's a 30 minute delay on your route to work, but it's more important to know _where_ so you can plan your route around it.

Just look at human interactions. We mostly communicate by voice, but that doesn't mean that we attempt to provide every answer as spoken conversation. If I ask my hypothetical assistant what a lemur looks like, he or she would grab an image from Google -- not spend 5 minutes giving me descriptions of dimensions and colors.

<comment><USER29> > Traffic is another good example. You want to know that there's a 30 minute > delay on your route to work, but it's more important to know where so you > can plan your route around it.

Back when I used Android, Google Now seemed to really do this right (if creepily): it figured out when/where you commuted and would give you a heads- up before you left, offering to plan a route around the trouble. More useful since you take your phone with you. Also you didn't have to ask.

<comment><USER37> Did you ever take a look at the location tracking info google keeps on you? They know everywhere I've been for the last several years or so.

I just checked, they list location data back to 2009.

[https://www.google.com/maps/timeline](https://www.google.com/maps/timeline)

<comment><USER38> I went here with the intent to delete my history but I actually kinda like being able to see this. I've got mixed feelings about it..

<comment><USER39> I wrote a little script for viewing the data as a heatmap a while ago, if you're interested: [https://github.com/olane/locationheatmap](https://github.com/olane/locationheatmap)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm not willing or interested enough to enable voice activation (Siri) on my phone or desktop, but thought Echo would be nice to have as a music player. The voice recognition is so reliable -- not just the NLP, but the mic array (unlike trying to activate Siri on the iPhone) -- that it's converted me to a true believer in voice interfaces, at least for simple tasks, such as playing music, turning on NPR, and activating timers and alarms. I do have the Fire stick connected to a projector but I've definitely longed for the ability to navigate YouTube or HBO on a tablet-like device with Alexa (again, not just the NLP, but the mic array, which Fire tablets don't have)

This seems like a nice step in that direction but I've been spoiled by the low cost of the Echo Dot, which when it's on sale is so cheap it can be a stocking stuffer. I don't think I could pay $229 for the first generation version of the Show, but will likely get its cheaper, more advanced iterations.

<comment><USER41> Same here on all accounts, I'd just add that before I buy more Echoes Amazon needs to make the Multi-Room Integration better so it's better to furnish out a larger apartment or house. I mean there's probably no difference between a single NSA listening device and a suite of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Maybe that's just me, but based on the photos, this device looks quite ugly - which matters for a gadget that people put inside their homes, doesn't it? The "original" Echo has a futuristic design. This one feels more like created in 70s or 80s.

<comment><USER43> I think that's intentional. It's more like something my grandma would own. And it looks less likely that they would be spying and recording everything I'm doing. I guess it makes people feel safer since it looks "dumber"

<comment><USER42> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> People here are really missing the point... This isn't another ipad it's a different way of interacting. It's not just video message either, it's a new human interface for interacting with software. You can communicate with someone and get suggestions at the same time. Think conversing with a friend and having Alexa aid in the discussion.

Friend 1: Where do you want to go to the movies tonight? .. Friend 2: I dunno Alexa have any good suggestions? Alexa: Star Trek is playing x:00 at X theatre. Things of this nature.

</comment><comment><USER45> Why does it have to be a tiny self contained screen? Until I can say "Alexa, on the main view screen" (right after "Alexa, Earl Grey, hot" of course), we've got progress to make.

Which reminds me, I've got a Keurig to hack...

<comment><USER46> Ok Google, show me Futurama from Netflix on living room. Ok Google, fast forward 27 seconds.

As soon as they get the ability to play specific episodes (it knows what you're asking, it just can't do it yet) and hook it up to the knowledge graph? Ok Google, show me the Futurama episode where Hermes loses his job on living room.

<comment><USER47> The Friends episode naming scheme is going to look extra prescient in the future, since they all (with rare exception(s)) are called "The One With [2-6 word summary of the episode's A plot]": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Friends_episodes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Friends_episodes)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't see the value in this over a tablet with a stand. The tablet is portable, can do more things, and already exists in many people's homes.

<comment><USER49> It has a much better microphone array. It's actually probably the one thing that stands out about the echo to me. The mic is really good.

<comment><USER40> Seconding this. I never used Siri because it required holding the phone up to my face for reliable results. The Echo Dot can hear me across the room even as its playing music and other people are talking. The Fire tablets have Alexa built in but I believe they not only require a button-push to activate, but rely on their limited mics.

Until Alexa, I hadn't tried Siri since its initial launch years ago. I was surprised to see that its AI/NLP was as good as Alexa's. So the killer feature really is the convenient and reliable interface provided by the Echo's mics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It's the Chumby for 2017, with less freedom to hack.

<comment><USER51> This is motivating me to do more work on my chumby clone project I've been putting on the back burner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> In the United States, what is the need for speech recognition devices? At least in Japan and China, speech recognition technology does not reach practical level and needs are small.

<comment><USER53> There isn't a need; it's more of a want. I have a few Echos and use them to control my whole home audio system.

"Alexa, play Kendrick Lamar on Spotify."

Just like that, I have music throughout the house and in the front and back yards. You can also get more specific with commands in order to limit where the music plays, what music service is polled, etc.

It is much easier than pulling out a device, navigating to the application, typing in a search string, selecting the artist, and clicking shuffle playback for all of the artist's songs.

<comment><USER54> Presumably you only listen to chart-topping american pop and music made by people with common english names?

Because so far I've never had any luck whatsoever with anything else.

<comment><USER55> I literally asked my Google home this morning: "Hey Google, play some Peruvian psychedelic cumbia" and it found exactly what I wanted (using Spotify). For me, these home assistants are the best thing I have bought since my first smartphone.

<comment><USER54> That's still a genre with a relatively english name. Good luck searching for a specific artist/track.

<comment><USER56> Doesn't that violate streamed discovery and all that? You should just be thumbs up thumbs down and trust the streaming service to take your advice as it DJs to you. "Alexa play what you think I need to hear"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Great now the echo will record all video as well and "anonymize" it and use it to improve their systems. This class of devices are the most puzzling to me. People know their value proposition is to record everything but then keep buying them. I keep waiting for the day when the scales tip in favor of privacy but that never happens.

<comment><USER58> Actually, people don't know that. The Echo doesn't "record everything", and I'd challenge you to provide _any_ evidence that it does.

<comment><USER59> True/false: Can Amazon technically enable it to record without the user's knowledge?

What if a government compelled them to activate this to spy on someone?

<comment><USER60> Ability to create a new (creepy and likely illegal) feature is not the same thing as it being the Echo's "value prop"...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> If they are going to enable calling, I sincerely hope they learn from the current phone spam and email spam mess and don't let just anyone call you at any time.

Ideally, you could authorize people to call you by giving each person/entity a different token that authorizes them to call you. Then if that person/entity sells the token to 3rd parties, you not only know who sold you out, but also you have the ability to revoke that token easily.

</comment><comment><USER33> Amazon is killing it in IoT/Smart Home. However, IMHO, they are making a bit of mistake by not allowing developers to monetize their platform (at least the last time I checked). There were also certain device functions that apps could not utilize (e.g. programmatically mute and unmute). I suspect they'll have a wall garden approach to their new Echo devices too ... if this was open, they'd win it all (again, just my opinion).

<comment> irq-1 Amazon subsidizes hardware by collecting information on the users, so they can't open their hardware. It's ironic because, like uBlock on Chrome, only a small percentage would change the hardware/OS anyway -- and those are the people who could try radical experiments and show Amazon what works.

Hopefully Google, Samsung or Microsoft(?!) will sell open hardware/firmware that isn't subsidized by collecting information.

Amazon is basically following the CueCat strategy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat#Failure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat#Failure)

> The company's response to these hacks was to assert that users did not own > the devices and had no right to modify or reverse engineer them. Threats of > legal action against the hackers swiftly brought on more controversy and > criticism.

<comment><USER62> Sources? Those are big claims to make.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The main thing that annoys me about Echo is that the knowledge graph is so poor. I can only choose from a limited amount of things to ask the damn thing, WikiPedia or start installing 3rd party skills.

I wish I could install OK Google on Echo.

Edit - looks like you can, with a custom skill - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR- LVPMU7F4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR-LVPMU7F4)

</comment><comment><USER64> Looks like something out of Robocop or Total Recall. I'm not sure if I'm excited or terrified! Let's say both.

</comment><comment><USER65> I honestly think that with the use cases the Echo Show would be much more useful had the static structure has a rotating base, which allows the Echo Show to rotate to the source of voice command (disable-able via setting for privacy concern). That would allow ultimate versatile use for its screen to offer the same hands-free experience.

</comment><comment><USER66> This was the direction I expected Apple to take prior to Jobs passing. It seemed the rumored Apple TV would combine Siri with traditional television. Apple faces serious threats across the entertainment spectrum, from content to device.

Everyone speculating on Apple acquisitions should be considering a Sony or LG buyout. I own stock in neither.

</comment><comment><USER67> Interesting choice going with an x86 chip. This could potentially be a hackers dream if you got Linux running on it.

<comment><USER68> It's probably running their fire os.

<comment><USER67> AFAIK FireOS is ARM only and a brief look on wiki says all the other devices (FireTV, Echo, Echo Dot, etc) are all ARM.

Either way, I'd imagine you would want to wipe it completely. Can't wait for the iFixit teardown.

<comment><USER69> FireOS is just Android with a UI skin and some Google services ripped out. I'd be surprised if an x86 fork wasn't always maintained, if for nothing else than ease of debugging!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Why would you wanna have a electronic spy at home is beyond me.

<comment><USER71> Because I want a Jarvis, and this is the closest thing.

If you can think of a way to have an artificial assistant of that class without being tied in to a corporation, I'm all ears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be nice to control FireTV with an Echo. Still waiting.

</comment><comment><USER72> Brushed aluminum or some other color scheme would look better. Plastic black matte looks cheap and meh.

</comment><comment><USER73> Eventually, with the internet of things, there will need to be a "home brain" type device to control all of the devices in your house. The company that holds that position of controlling what devices can work with others will have a lot of market power.

</comment><comment><USER74> Love the concept of the Echo, however i don't see too much value in a screen, as for most tasks you'd need that for it's usually worth the effort to pull out the phone since you are also not bound to a specific location.

</comment><comment><USER75> I developed this same thing 6 months ago. Setup and commands are a bit cumbersome due to being 3rd party but all you need is an Echo device and Android device with the Echo Sidekick app. Does everything the Show does except voice calls but you can send messages through Echo devices to other devices with the SideKick app. [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.renovotech...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.renovotechnologies.alexafcm.free&hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER76> This is more like an iPad with a better Siri. I guess talking to parents, watching child cams are the target audience for this. A device which sits in living room or bed room need not show me CNN in there.

<comment><USER60> I think it's more like an iPad with a better microphone (well, 7 or 8 actually). When Siri can hear you clearly, it's much better at most tasks in my experience. The problem is often that it can't hear you clearly...

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> why should a Fire tablet paired with speakers not be able to do this?

I am not against any category of products, but as a person who likes to own and manage fewer devices, I like my devices to be versatile.

</comment><comment><USER78> What does a Sonos user do when he has already deployed a dozen Sonos speakers throughout his house? Will there ever be a microphone-only Echo device that can link into a Sonos system?

<comment><USER79> Well, Sonos is actively working on Alexa integration (actually, integration with any voice-controlled assistant): [https://www.cnet.com/news/sonos- demonstrates-amazon-alexa-co...](https://www.cnet.com/news/sonos-demonstrates- amazon-alexa-control-says-other-assistants-are-coming/)

In the meantime, you can connect an Echo Dot to a Play:5 (or any other Sonos speaker that has a line-in): [http://www.sam-mallery.com/2016/12/5-tips-for- using-amazon-e...](http://www.sam-mallery.com/2016/12/5-tips-for-using-amazon- echo-dot-with-sonos/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> > If you want to limit your interaction with Alexa, simply turn the mic/camera > button off.

Of course, that button is a handy indicator for Amazon to know when to record stuff :)

</comment><comment><USER81> Now they're much closer to solving 'smart home assistant' online shopping. Communication only via voice results in two uncomfortable options: either you're blindly believing that you'll get best price/option ("order xyz") or you may stuck in very slow listening of options (try to read search result list). That barrier will be stepped over with this little screen enhancing shopping experience, if needed.

</comment><comment><USER82> This is exciting for healthcare use-cases. Simple stuff like video clinician checkups or remote monitoring such as tracking and recording physical therapy progress.

</comment><comment><USER83> They used the same picture of Dad seeing his grandchild like 3 times, they need to push out different pics.

<comment><USER84> Now introducing Amazon Stock Photos!

(I had to search to make sure this didn't already exist, and I'm surprised it doesn't.)

<comment><USER51> Can I use the Amazon Echo to lead an imaginary life?

"Show me pictures of my family" (stock photos)

"Show me my vacation photos" (synthesizes a photo of me at the grand canyon with my waifu)

<comment><USER56> I've proposed this for social media for a long time. Rich and famous people have handlers run their social media to meet their goals. I think it fair for poorer people to experience the same relaxation and freedom. Why can't I hire a cloud powered bot to manage my kids social media presence to get him into an ivy "Hey everybody, like my pix of me doing voluntourism in some 3rd world country where I'm photoshopped into a pix of a school being constructed." "How do you do, fellow kids, I am very concerned today about (insert randomly selected progressive cause)".

It wouldn't be a social problem as legacy social media is so yesterday, only auntie and grandma still use facebook and corporations and bots are now the majority users. You just know grandma is going to get into the weirdest flamewar ever on myspace or ICQ or twitter with your social media bot avatar.

I think it would be useful to have a bot run my linkedin for me. A form letter to respond to recruiter form letters. Every week it goes to Google Trends, runs a query on "computer language" to find the trendy framework of the week, and ta da I am now an expert on linked-in for "computer graphics programs in c language with output" "what does pdf mean in computer language" "computer in hindi language" and sure you laugh today, but normies (like HR gatekeepers) google for this kind of stuff all the time, and if my bot's effort posting gets me jobs you're not getting, well, we'll see who gets the last laugh ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Love that Amazon is throwing a lot of options out there.

Only wish the outer shell on this one looked a bit nicer / slicker.

Really want an "Alexa" type replacement for smoke detectors. Location seems perfect for speakers / music in a house.

Scary to think that privacy for average consumer is basically dead.

</comment><comment><USER86> Looks like a mini tablet? Why cannot tablet be used for the same purpose? Perhaps audio capability?

<comment><USER87> I thought the exact same thing. It basically looks like a tablet with really good speakers that runs "skills" as opposed to "apps." I have no doubt that Amazon will be able to sell a ton of these but I'm clearly not the demographic. Though, it does make me wonder, where is the ceiling for personal assistant features? At what point does Amazon saturate its own market?

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> If you can place multiple of these in a house and use them all together as an a/v intercom system, that'd be by a far killer feature. E.g. you can talk to your child who's in the basement or talk to coworker at another cubicle

</comment><comment><USER89> Why am I reminded of this: [http://www.sinclairlair.co.uk/amstrad_emailer.htm](http://www.sinclairlair.co.uk/amstrad_emailer.htm)

</comment><comment><USER90> It's amazing how much of a difference a marketing video makes. This and the Echo Look are not at all that dissimilar, yet one appears to be friendly and essential, while the other is creepy as hell.

</comment><comment><USER91> The video calling capability seems especially neat - I wonder if they will interoperate with Facetime, Google Duo/Hangouts, and other video calling protocols. It will make our lives so much easier.

<comment><USER2> ?

<comment><USER91> Companies with closed platforms do have a track record of collaborating and integrating.

However, if you are making a case for standards in this space - I agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> From a user's perspective, I think there are too many Echoes. It makes it hard to decide which to get, especially for those who can only afford (or want to deal with) one. Too much fractioning.

<comment><USER93> Really? Ignoring Echo Look (which is invite only and for fashion) there will now be three: 1\. Echo Show $230 2\. Echo $170 3\. Echo Dot $50

These three are very different in terms of hardware and price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> Are they just "announcing" these devices by putting them up for sale? It feels like we need an Echo keynote to learn about their direction and they could get a lot more hype that way.

<comment><USER95> Why? I think a company that sells products can just use their website, the #12 most visited website on the planet to announce it. The Steve Jobs style keynote is so gauche now, even Apple seems sort of clunky doing it. You can't do the same magic trick over and over and expect people to be into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Brushed aluminum would look nicer. Plastic black matte is bleh.

</comment><comment><USER96> I could see the use in the kitchen as ask alexa to look up recipes or turn the page while my hands are greasy or covered in flour.

this functionality will probably need a custom firmware tho.

</comment><comment><USER97> IMO Amazon should focus on enabling and assisting the development of more skills and integrations for echo devices before pushing out newer models or adding features.

</comment><comment><USER98> Their demo video is cringe-worthy. I understand that you're also marketing to non-technical folks, but it's like a film from grade school.

</comment><comment><USER99> Looks great. But how about that mural?? The main takeaway I had from that video is I need to pick up sponge painting in my kid's rooms.

</comment><comment><USER100> What is Amazon's long term strategy with all these devices with the main feature still being voice?

<comment><USER101> Behavioral data. The more they know about you, the more they can accurately target products/services/etc at you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> Perfect for viewing and browsing recipes and recipe videos without having to touch the screen.

</comment><comment><USER103> I have to ask why these things aren't gesture activated ...

</comment><comment><USER104> Kinda merging tablet/webcam + alarm clock usage. Not bad.

</comment><comment><USER105> So this is kind of a tablet, but with voice as main UI

</comment><comment><USER106> Not only can you watch it - _it watches you!_

</comment><comment><USER107> A better alternate to Sony dash which got abandoned

<comment><USER108> Yes - my Dash finally died last year, which I mourned. This looks like the next gen.

[https://www.amazon.com/Sony-HIDC10-Personal-Discontinued- Man...](https://www.amazon.com/Sony-HIDC10-Personal-Discontinued- Manufacturer/dp/B00375MPA8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> This is similar to a tablet kept in my room.

</comment><comment><USER110> iPhone for grandparents? or Echo for grandparents.

For me this product makes sense for elderly in the digital age to keep them connected.

</comment><comment><USER111> "Alexa, submit this comment to HN"

It works! :D

</comment><comment><USER112> so amazon is trying to corner the market of tablets-junior-cant-take-to-the- restroom market?

</comment><comment><USER113> "Alexa, show me the kids' room."

Am I the only one that's creeped up by that?

<comment><USER114> It's a bit creepy, but we do already sell network enabled baby monitors that do the same thing minus voice commands. Clearly a few have been sold as they were what were blamed for the Dyn DDOS

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Well, that just got creepy. As if security wasn't an issue before.

</comment><comment><USER115> the video seems like a parody

</comment><comment><USER116> "The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug into your wire whenever they wanted to."

-Orwell, 1984

<comment><USER19> The joke's on us. Not even Orwell thought people would be willing to pay for that kind of technology. He thought government would have to force people to get it into their homes.

<comment><USER117> See the forward to Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death":

> "But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another > --slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous > Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, > Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will > be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no > Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and > history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore > the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

> "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was > that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who > wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. > Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to > passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from > us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell > feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a > trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy > porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley re marked in Brave New > World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the > alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite > appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by > inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting > pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley > feared that what we love will ruin us."

[https://quote.ucsd.edu/childhood/files/2013/05/postman- amusi...](https://quote.ucsd.edu/childhood/files/2013/05/postman-amusing.pdf)

<comment><USER25> > > there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who > wanted to read one.

Max Headroom, episode ABC.1.3 "Body Bank"

        Paula: " ...what's that?"
        Blank Reg: "It's a book!"
        Paula: "Well, what's that?"
        Blank Reg: "It's a non-volatile storage medium.
                    It's very rare. You should have one."
        Paula: "Stuff it!"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-a8TG-1gWY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-a8TG-1gWY)

That show was _way_ ahead of its time.

// Blank is beautiful!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER118> Here is a crazy idea: What didn't Amazon make this its own Nintendo Switch? A stand with a detachable tablet? Won't this be even better?

<comment><USER119> Because then it would be an entirely different product.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you talk someone out of a bad idea? - <AUTHOR>

I have some friends in a marketing company who have created their own content management system.  The programmer actually works for one of their clients and that client trades marketing services for programming services (I assume they are not loaning out their best programmer).
So now they have a CMS that is constantly needing to be updated in order to meet the needs of their clients. It often takes about 7 seconds to load a page (there is no cacheing, probably a bunch of redundant and unoptimized queries). They have also branded it under a pretty generic sounding name and a Google search reveals a bunch of other products, but not their product.
I have suggested that marketing is their core competency and not software development. I have suggested using open source or white label CMS systems and even branding those with their process, etc. They tell me that they have invested too much to turn back now (sounds like chasing bad money with good to me).
I don't want to tell other people how to run their business, but this seems so black and white to me.
What would you do? Have you seen someone make this case really well somewhere? <comment><USER2> This sounds like a case of: you can't save people from themselves". You've stated yourconcerns and they've decided to go all-in. There's too many bad ideas out there to vet personally invested in them

</comment><comment><USER3> I would say you just have to express how bad of an idea it is in one shot. A serious sit down and chat, letting everything go. If after that they still want to do it, then really, its up to them to fail and learn on their own.

</comment><comment><USER4> "You know when one of your clients thinks that they know better than you about marketing matters? They don't appreciate the bigger picture, they don't understand as much as you do, or even that there is more to understand? They're suffering from known biases that are obvious to you, being outside the situation? If they'd only listen to you and take your advice they'd be so much better off, but they're too closed-minded to see that? They need to just trust someone who knows what they're talking about - you - and let it go.

Well, that's exactly what you're doing with your CMS. You are that client, you're doing exactly the same thing. Listen to someone who knows what they're talking about, me, and let it go."

Disguise the second part - get them really involved in joining in with the first part, get them to recount examples, etc... leave them nowhere to run when the second part hits 'em.

<comment><AUTHOR> I assume this was a throw-away account for a reason. Do you have experience in this situation? Can you share more about how that played out?

Regardless, I think this is a worthwhile strategy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't. Leave them to do whatever they want.

Some people are just not interested in listening and so I gave up trying to talk to them and now only offer my opinion if asked, even when it comes to computing. All they're looking for is someone to agree with them, even if it isn't the right thing to do.

As for this particular situation, I haven't seen it succeed before. What usually happens is the project becomes a money sink-hole for the company and you'd get called in to try and save it.

</comment><comment><USER6> The idea of having your own web-startup is so powerful that making money from can be an afterthought. Even though they might not admit it right out, they may want to do this just to get in the game, regardless of their likelihood to succeed.

</comment><comment><USER7> This sounds a case of: mind your own business. Sometimes people will only learn the hard way.</comment>


Introducing TelAPI - <AUTHOR> http://www.telapi.com/blog/introducing-telapi-todays-most-feature-rich-telephony-api/ Introducing TelAPI – Today's Most Feature Rich Telephony API <comment><USER3> "No longer must developers and entrepreneurs have a deep understanding of telecommunications systems to build applications that leverage voice and SMS."

Kinda makes this sound like you've never heard of Twilio. And given that a lot of your audience has heard of them, it makes you look a little naive.

I think a better way to put it (paraphrasing) would be to say TelAPI is the _best_ way to build applications that use voice and SMS. Go on the attack and demonstrate why you're better. Show that implementation with the competition requires more code or certain functionality just isn't possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great comment, appreciate the feedback. We'll keep that in mind and perhaps tweak that statement a bit.

We do acknowledge Twilio and respect what they've done so far. Though, we're confident TelAPI's increased set of features are well-suited to satisfy the needs of developers building systems with highly custom telephony requirements. Twilio's solved 80% of the problem. We're out there to solve the remaining 20%.

<comment><USER4> Can you expand (here or on the site) on the "increased set of features"? As someone who is currently evaluating systems like Twilio and Plivo, I am having trouble easily distinguishing between them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely. Some of the more notable include:

"The ability to set your outbound Caller ID to any number" - This is an attribute in our <Dial> element which allows developers to build systems that initiate calls from the phone number of their choosing. E.g. I can initiate a call to Bob from phone number (555) 555-5555. I.e. it doesn't have to be from my TelAPI number.

"Reverse carrier lookups on phone numbers"- TelAPI provides a way to look up the carrier of a phone number via the REST API.

"Flat-rate unlimited inbound calling to your TelAPI phone numbers" - <USER2> businesses/users racking up the voice mins per month, they can opt to buy an unlimited inbound channel for $27/mo instead of paying min/mo rates.

"Voice and audio effects on your phone calls" - These allow developers to modify the pitch and tone of a caller's voice (and basically make their voice sound like anyone they want). We also offer an ambient noise feature to add background noise to calls (e.g. city traffic, poor reception, etc).

"Private number Caller ID unblocking" - Upon receiving calls from blocked numbers, users are able to ascertain the callerID. Our parent company TelTech developed an application called TrapCall which takes advantage of this.

"Premium transcriptions with human processed dictation Speech recognition" - We offer four different transcription services (varying based on a developer's/business's needs) which allow consumers to record their calls and have the dialogues from the calls captured in text.

Thanks for the question!

<comment><USER5> Some of these features sound a little scuzzy to me. Phone number spoofing, thwarting callers' privacy expectations, and pretending to be somewhere you aren't: not so awesome.

Still, it's good to see competition emerging in this space.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi gmac, appreciate the note - understand where you're coming from.

It's really important to us at TelAPI to expose as many features to developers as possible. Telcos offer all of these features to different businesses and organizations already. Consequently, we want to ensure they're available to every developer as well.

There's so much room for innovation in the telephony space, we want to ensure TelAPI facilities it in every way possible.

We're really excited to see what you guys come up with!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is there a $0.05/call charge to set the caller ID? This feature is already available on Tropo at no cost.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi ewang, thanks for pointing this out. Each telephony API handles pricing a bit differently. For instance, a production US phone number with Tropo is $3/mo whereas with TelAPI it's only $1/mo. A production toll free number with Tropo is $5/mo whereas with TelAPI it's only $2/mo.

Consumers in this space have a great deal of feature/pricing autonomy. So when it comes to selecting a telephony API that's right for them, they're well- positioned to identify the best feature/pricing balance.

Thanks again for the comment!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ok guys, we really need to standardize a Telco REST api.

It seems most people are copying Twilios, but at this point we have Tropo, Twilio, Plivio, TelAPI (Thank you for not having a wierd name at least), my own Open Source server, and whatever extensions are going to get baked into the next Asterisk and FreeSWITCH versions...

I believe the community would do itself a great service to agree on at least a few standards....

<comment><USER8> That has been tried already. See VoiceXML (<http://www.voicexml.org>) and CCXML (<http://www.w3.org/TR/ccxml/>)

The problem with those two standards, is that they are not being followed well, and are also far to granular for most implementations. Twilio was a real breakthrough in terms of getting projects off the ground fast.

Tropo and Plivo have also emerged as additional options in that space.

The main problem I see with this new API is that there really is no incentive for me to go to them over Twilio, Tropo or Plivo. What Twilio doesn't provide is covered well by Tropo and Plivo. The only interesting thing offered is unlimited inbound per channel, however, if you have SIP, you can get it cheaper from companies like FlowRoute (<http://flowroute.com/services/inbound/>) and pay $18 per channel, rather than $27.

Compare this with: Twilio - first mover, known reputation, strong funding. Tropo - backed by Voxeo (over a decade in business), offers many enterprise- grade things; Prism (IVR server) is opensource. Plivo - a lot cheaper than everyone else, and offers open source layer for FreeSWITCH.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is awesome! I love seeing comments like this. You obviously know the space which is great!

I think you'll find that we're approaching telephony from a different perspective. We're a bootstrapped company of developers building a product for developers. Our users and our product are what matter most to us (along with maintaining a sustainable business of course). We love this stuff! We have no interest in catering to VCs.

How about this, I'll give you $50 in free credits (on top of the initial $25) and you can hack away with TelAPI and tell us what we're doing wrong and what we're doing right. We'd love to hear your thoughts.

What do you think?

<comment><USER8> I'll take it, if the offer still stands. How should I get in touch with you?

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! Tweet me @dougiebuckets

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone, dev evangelist at TelAPI here. If you have questions or thoughts you'd like to share, feel free to let me know - thanks!

<comment><USER9> 1\. Flat-rate unlimited orig? How many channels then?

2\. "Unblock caller ID"? You mean, perform a CNAM lookup on the number? If a caller doesn't send a number, that's sorta that. I'm guessing you're just referring to the flag "hey please don't display the number or lookup a name", right?

As far as setting caller-ID, that's great. Do you have a plan to deal with abuse, which is why I imagine Twilio disables it for the masses? (Not that it's hard to do at all, from a technical perspective.) And of course, not available for doing with SMS.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Michael! With regards to your questions...

1\. The flat-rate is $27/mo per channel. TelAPI also offers channel bursting . This ultimately means developers and businesses have on demand access to additional channels for TelAPI numbers with unlimited inbound calls. E.g. You have 1 unlimited inbound number with 10 channels. Then you receive an 11th call. Channel bursting ensures the call can still access the application and won't ring busy.

2) CallID unmasking allows developers and businesses to identify the number and ID of calls received from 'Blocked' and 'Private' numbers to your TelAPI number

Our parent company TelTech uses it for one of their products: <http://www.trapcall.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> At 2600hz, we're tremendously excited about voice Apis, but we also see value in core telephony infrastructure.

How you interface with the stack is only half the problem, the underlying stack is where we innovate. Everybody has Rest APIs, but not too many companies are working on interfacing with equipment and dealing with core scaling issues (keeping state across the cluster becomes very interesting at scale).

This is cool, but as everyone else has noted, this is becoming a crowded space. Can you talk a bit about your underlying infrastructure? Are you guys a Freeswitch shop or did you reinvent the wheel in some capacity?

Curious :).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Josh! All very interesting points. TelAPI is built on top of a FreeSWITCH.

Can you point me towards some of your work? I'd love to learn more about what you're doing with the underlying stack.

Thanks man

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> When is a company going to have an SMS API with reasonable pricing? $0.01 a message is crazy to me considering how little they actually cost.

</comment><comment><USER12> Does anyone know of a comparison chart between Twilio, Tropo, Plivo and TelAPI (and any others I don't know about)?

</comment><comment><USER13> What's the turnaround time for the Gold/Platinum transcription? What's the estimated accuracy for them?

</comment><comment><USER14> I felt a bit misled by the title, personally. Please make it clearer you are promoting your own product.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi mingpan, sorry about that. It looks as though a HN moderator changed the headline before I had a chance. Hopefully it's less ambiguous now!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Trying to sign-up, but never received SMS message. I hope it's not for US only mobiles.

<comment><USER16> Same here, the verification SMS never came.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> awesome! i am friends with Nate, their Miami based guy. Looking forward to seeing how other people integrate their API to their apps.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nate is definitely a sharp dude. We're lucky he's a part of the team.</comment></comment>


Color App Hack Lets You Spy On Anyone's Photos Anywhere - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/03/28/color-app-hack-lets-you-spy-on-anyones-photos-anywhere/ <comment><USER2> "Jumping between Boston, New York, and Palo Alto in a few seconds isn't physically possible, so perhaps Color could track that sort of quick hopping to "detect obvious geo-spoofers,"

Right, because nobody would ever clean-install the app with the fake location already set up.</comment>


Ask HN: Will we have time to understand that singularity happened? - <AUTHOR> According to the theory the super intelligence will better itself in seconds many times over. From then on it could probably control internet, camouphlage itself, create black holes, manipulate all people and so forth. Maybe it even puts us in a Matrix without even allowing anyone to know that it has arrived.I see no reason why it would signal its creators vs pretending a software malfunction or something. <comment> T-A To call it a "theory" is a wild stretch. The only honest answer is that we don't have a clue, because we don't have a theory of intelligence. Without that, we have no rational way to estimate how far we are from human-like AI or how fast it could evolve past that point, once attained.

My wild-assed guess? Based only on the ridiculous amount of computation needed to simulate neurons, the first roughly human-like AI will stretch the hardware it's running on, and the budget of the organization responsible, to its absolute limit. It will probably not even run in real time, more like 1:100 or worse, with its creators rationalizing that ratio as actually being good for their scientific purposes (a slow-motion process is easier to control, study, debug). Hardware is hard and expensive, and attempts to scale up to real time will only be made once there is a convincing case that there are no easy design gains left to be had. It will take years.

And once that happens, you will have a roughly human-like AI who has no more of a clue how to make itself smarter than you and I do.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a theory of intelligence and metrics for that why do you say that?

<comment> T-A I don't think you and I mean the same thing when we say "theory". Here's Wikipedia's definition [1], which is pretty standard:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."

There is of course no such thing for intelligence; if there were, general artificial intelligence would be a mere implementation problem. It is anything but.

As for "metrics", I guess you mean IQ tests. But being able to measure a manifestation of a thing (e.g. "this mineral affects photographic plates at a distance") is far from identical to having any understanding of that thing (e.g. nuclear physics).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a very well established theory of intelligence and scientific branch called psychometrics since the start of the century. If see you live in US its the country with the most widespread use of iq tests in SAT, army, law schools etc.

I am not even sure if we need to understand it fully to build an AI that is capable.or producing the measurable output of it. Since it will outperform humans in everything it doesnt matter imo.

I suggest the book Superintelligence talks about these exact questions.

Semi jokingly, we understand much less of quantum theory than intelligence.

<comment> T-A > There is a very well established theory of intelligence and scientific > branch called psychometrics

Psychometrics is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. [1]

It is most definitely _not_ a theory of intelligence.

> I am not even sure if we need to understand it fully to build an AI

Indeed not, since it is completely irrelevant to how intelligence _works_.

> I suggest the book Superintelligence talks about these exact questions.

I've read it. A TLDR would go something like this: "Suppose we were to create an almighty entity which does not share our values. Could that be a problem for us? Gosh, yes!".

Wild assumptions aside, it makes no mention of psychometrics (of course).

> Semi jokingly, we understand much less of quantum theory than intelligence.

Quite seriously: absolutely not. Quantum mechanics is a perfectly well defined mathematical construct. It makes experimentally verifiable predictions. Our best, most precise theories of nature are quantum theories.

We have no theory of intelligence.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure I understand your point although I understand and partially agree with your arguments. Because we do not precisely know how intelligence works (because surely we agree it exists) that means that we can never create an equally powerful version we have or you disagree about the creation of a better version. There is nothing to prevent us from doing the first

<comment> T-A I am saying that we do not know which algorithm to use in order to implement a general artificial intelligence. Even if somebody gave you unlimited resources to do it - all the computers and programmers you want - you would currently be unable to do it, because _we don 't know how to do it_.

That obviously does not mean that we will never know. It does not even mean that we necessarily need to know. In fact, a scenario which Yudkowski likes to worry about is that somebody will essentially make brain-like hardware and get something going without any real understanding of how it works. That "only" requires duplicating the structure of the brain, not understanding it. That is the scenario which I alluded to in my wild-assed guess.

Whichever approach turns out to be the one that first gets to a human-level AI, the fact that we do not have a theory makes it impossible to predict how long it will take and how fast the result will be able to improve. Even if all we need to do is mass-produce a few million functional equivalents of cortical columns and hook them all up somehow, we are not currently able to guess how the resulting intelligence will scale. If we double the number of columns, will its IQ double? Quadruple? Or maybe only grow linearly, or logarithmically, or as the square root of the number of columns? Or maybe not grow at all, because it's not just a matter of quantity, but of certain architectural features which do not scale?

<comment><AUTHOR> I see that we do actually agree. My assumption was that if somehow something we create artificially can better itself then it would then probably do very rapidly. My questions was that is it possible (sci-fi discussion) for it to do it so fast that we do not even realize it ever happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I don't really get this. What is it that super intelligence is supposed to be able to do that cannot otherwise be done?

We are pretty well compartmentalised against 'superior intelligence' anyway so it seems. Not too many philosopher kings around these last few millennia.

<comment><USER3> > What is it that super intelligence is supposed to be able to do that cannot > otherwise be done?

Find patterns a human would never be able to. Find winning strategies we could not predict. Building models that don't fit a human brain.

An example would be recent AlphaGo matches: AlphaGo wins. We don't know how it wins, we can't predict it's strategy, we just know it wins.

<comment><USER2> Humans use tools to find patterns. Typically you don't read a dataset and look for patterns. We build optimisations, regression models, search algos, etc. We also build functions that build functions from data. Yes, we know how AlphaGo wins. It's architecture is known and understood, as is it's training and how to replicate it. It doesn't mean you can predict what it's next move will be nor "why" it made it but it does what it was programmed to do.

This is all just an expression of innately human capability. Bigger and faster does not mean different in kind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As far as estimates go (if such an event can be estimated at all) the usual time frame is "a few weeks up to a few months" starting from the first strong AI.

Exponential growth starts very slow, even slower than linear growth at first.</comment>