Apple releases iOS 10.3 - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2017/03/27/ios-10-3/ <comment><USER2> I've been running the beta for a few weeks now. The thing that stands out the most? They changed the filesystem, and I haven't noticed a thing - the upgrade time wasn't even significantly longer. If anything, the beta has been more stable than 10.2 releases.

The fact they've pulled it off so seamlessly is pretty impressive. Heck, the majority of users won't have a clue that their filesystem has changed, and that's the way it should be - users shouldn't be required to know about technical implementation.

<comment><USER3> > the upgrade time wasn't even significantly longer

I wonder if it works like FileVault, where there's a notion of a "partially converted" volume and blocks are slowly converted as a background-idle task after the update completes.

<comment><USER4> Could be, it may be more like the ext3/4 -> BTRFS conversion process[1], where metadata for the new filesystem is written in the free space, but with pointers to the original data which isn't moved or re-written.

[1] [https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Conversion_from_Ext3](https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Conversion_from_Ext3)

<comment><USER5> I believe they discussed about this being the method they were actually doing on ATP a few weeks ago, I'll find the link and report back soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Biggest change to me in this release is that iOS now switches language immediately with hardware keyboard rather than after the switcher animation ended.

This problem is not very noticable if you do not use non-Latin input method. However for some languages (Thai in my case), in iOS 10.2, it means you will have to wait a little moment until the language switcher faded out until you can type in the target language, otherwise it will still stuck at previous language. I'm _really_ glad to see this fixed.

(Previously I workaround this problem by using Capslock, which seems to be able to make iOS go into latin input mode.)

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm excited about exposing to app developers a way to ask for ratings. Specifically, the ability to opt out of them.

I think this doesn't address the real problem though, which is that ratings reset after every app update. This means that app developers have to constantly ask for reviews, which is exhausting as a user.

<comment><USER8> >ratings reset after every app update.

What's the reasoning behind this? On Android, reviews for prior versions have a "This review was left for a previous version." banner at the top of them, but the star aggregates are all still there. How do apps keep reviews if they're wiped out every time an app updates?

<comment><USER9> There are two views when looking at ratings in the iOS App Store:

      Current version
      All versions

It defaults to "Current version"

<comment><USER10> This is true, and also, when searching the app store the star ratings displayed next to each app are based on the "current version", so if an app is recently released it might say "0 reviews" even though it previously had thousands.

<comment> k-mcgrady I guess as a developer this approach is useful if your first version is bug ridden, gets terrible reviews and you quickly push an update that fixes them all. Your product is doomed. Maybe after 5 updates or something to an app it should show the 'all ratings' as defaults but before that show 'current version'.

<comment><USER11> Or, alternatively, if a previously popular app changes hands and turns into semi-malware, it's useful to not get a free 5 star listing.... :)

<comment><USER8> How often does something like that happen on iOS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's the security info: [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT207617](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207617)

Notably, ten kernel arbitrary code execution bugs, seven from Google Project Zero and two from Qihoo 360's research team. There are also a few WebKit RCEs, so it seems like it's prudent to update as soon as possible, lest a malicious website silently jailbreak your phone.

<comment><USER13> Don't upgrade immediately unless you're willing to deal with problems. If these security updates were critical they'd be made available in a 10.2.x point release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Changing filesystem for billions of phones in a point release? That doesn't sound fun.

<comment><USER15> Initially, I was thinking the same thing. Given how fast the average Apple consumer updates to major iOS releases, I imagine that rolling it out over a point release is actually part of the plan.

Presumably, if something does go wrong on the individual level, the support burden on the genius bars will be lower (since major iOS releases have traditionally come alongside hardware releases), and if a major bug is found, the number of devices affected will also likely be smaller.

It stills feels wrong on a gut level, and semver folks might not be happy with it, but it seems to make some real sense.

edit: Also, if it went out with 11.0, coordinating all the bug fixes for a 11.0.1 would almost definitely take longer than whatever will be in 10.3.1 release, letting any APFS issues get tweaked faster.

<comment><USER16> Rolling it out first on iOS at all doesn't seem like the right approach.

If I were somehow in charge of it, I imagine I'd want to do it like: 1) ship it as officially supported on the Mac, but off by default. 2) a year or two later, ship it as officially supported on the Mac, on by default, but still allow HFS+ as an option. 3) A year or two after that, if all has gone well, then introduce it into iOS (where presumably it's not reasonable to make it optional).

It's really weird to me that Apple is rolling it out to hundreds of millions of devices all at once, when it's not even a bootable filesystem on any of their platforms yet. Seems like the kind of thing where you'd want to take a more gradual approach.

I get that HFS+ is super old and I see why Apple wants to switch to APFS. But I don't get why they're in such a hurry.

Here's hoping their approach works well, in any case!

<comment><USER17> > _If I were somehow in charge of it, I imagine I 'd want to do it like: 1) > ship it as officially supported on the Mac, but off by default. 2) a year or > two later, ship it as officially supported on the Mac, on by default, but > still allow HFS+ as an option. 3) A year or two after that, if all has gone > well, then introduce it into iOS (where presumably it's not reasonable to > make it optional_

The plan doesn't make much sense. For one, the Mac has way more edge cases than iOS (in that people do more, and in more low- and -high level ways) with the filesystem, including running all kinds of unix userlands, exchanging files with other filesystems, etc. In iOS all fs APIs and access are tightly controlled, and there's no mounting of disks, no touching outside the sandbox, no disk management apps, etc.

So iOS is a much better target for first launch than OS X.

Second, with this plan it would take 3-5 years to ever arrive. Why so late? Apple has been developing it for a while, and probably have thousands of tests it has to pass. And they have been running it on 1 million or more devs on the 10.3 beta program on actual devices for feedback for 2 months.

<comment><USER16> 3-5 years seems to be pretty typical for a filesystem to go from merely available to being battle tested enough to use without thinking about it. Bugs could destroy people's data (and the cloud won't necessarily help if the bugs corrupt data rather than erase it). What's the hurry?

<comment><USER17> > _Bugs could destroy people 's data (and the cloud won't necessarily help if > the bugs corrupt data rather than erase it)._

There's no reason to expect bugs if you have a comprehensive test suite and extensive internal and beta testing (like with a million of registered iOS developers running it for months).

Doubly so if you control most of the APIs and interactions with the OS tightly in your platform (as iOS does).

<comment><USER16> Which is why the rest of iOS has no bugs?

This statement makes me wonder, have you written any software before?

<comment><USER17> > _Which is why the rest of iOS has no bugs?_

It has no show stopper bugs, and is used by close to a billion everyday just fine.

And the "rest of the iOS" (kernel, userland, etc) is orders of magnitude more LOC than the filesystem. And with all kind of interactions between components, not just a constrained API that all sandboxed apps use, as is the case with an FS. It has way bigger test surface and (presumably) way smaller test suites than an FS would.

What's the reason to assume an FS which is under production for 2 years now at least (it didn't appear magically formed a day before last WWDC) will have not just some obscure or infrequent bugs, but data killing bugs?

(And why they'd be more than with the frequent new features and changes that Apple made/retrofitted to HFS over the years? Because they've started from scratch?)

<comment><USER16> Because software has bugs, filesystem software has data corruption bugs, and two years of development with only a couple of months of serious real-world testing is _tiny_ for something like that.

What other filesystems have gone from zero to being the only supported option on their platform in such a short time? ZFS took almost five years. HFS+ was supported in parallel with HFS for a _long_ time.

"And why they'd be more than with the frequent new features and changes that Apple made/retrofitted to HFS over the years? Because they've started from scratch?"

Once again I have to wonder: have you _written_ software before? Of _course_ a brand new from-scratch effort will be buggier than something with a long history.

<comment><USER17> > _Once again I have to wonder: have you written software before?_

Yes, for several decades -- though not filesystems.

And I trivially know that software can always have bugs. I also know software has to ship at some point, and that is a different point than the "we're 100% sure it has 0 bugs" point -- which is not possible anyway.

I also don't believe in some cargo cult "optimal necessary period of testing" to make sure a given piece of software has or doesn't have bugs.

I also know that it's perfectly possible to have 10x the testing in 1/10 the time other teams/companies might take for their tests -- (e.g. by having far heavier test suites, more intelligent tests, better fuzzing, more systems to test on in your labs, more QA engineers thrown at the problem, or even formally proving your software's behavior) .

Finally, I can make ad hominem arguments too: have you wrote and deployed any filesystems before? If the domain experts designing AFS are confident to put it in use why we should trust you? Because of your scientific observations of checking how long other companies took to deploy their new filesystems and extrapolating some BS "optimal deployment time" from that?

In any case, maybe visit back this thread in 1 month? If the sky hasn't fallen for iOS 10.3 users (except, at worse, for some edge cases affecting tiny minorities/uncommon setups), maybe you'll be ready for your serving of crow?

<comment><USER16> I knew this argument would be made.

Why should you believe me instead of the people writing APFS? You shouldn't. I'm stating my opinion on the matter. I'm allowed to disagree with them, and you're allowed to disagree with me, but "Apple thinks it's OK" is _not_ going to convince me. If it was, then I wouldn't have formed a contrary opinion in the first place, since it's so obvious.

Further, we don't even know if the experts are confident. It's entirely possible this decision was made above them and forced on them. It's also entirely possible it wasn't, we just don't know.

In any case, if everything goes smoothly (and I hope it will), that doesn't disprove me. It could mean that you're right, or it could mean that I'm right and they got lucky. It could also mean that some people _are_ losing data, but not visibly enough and not in large enough number to make the news.

You say "except, at worse, for some edge cases affecting tiny minorities/uncommon setups" as if that would justify Apple's approach. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm worried about here. I have no doubt it'll work for the common case. 99.9% of users will not suffer any problems. But I don't see why pushing APFS now as opposed to in a few years is worth the risk of that 0.1%.

<comment><USER17> > _In any case, if everything goes smoothly (and I hope it will), that doesn > 't disprove me._

Doesn't that make your case an empty statement that basically amounts to "you can never be too careful" (and which is always right, no matter the outcome)?

> _But I don 't see why pushing APFS now as opposed to in a few years is worth > the risk of that 0.1%._

Because it improves lots of things with the 99.9% -- SSD utilization, better Time Machine, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Backup first. Both my parents phones went to recovery mode. They have an iphone 5c and another old model.

Going to see if I can extract data. They didn't have itunes backups.

<comment><USER19> You can use Revive from Apple Configurator to possibly fix them.

<comment><USER18> This worked, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I dont know whom to blame? I need Google Maps in Apple Car play and without that its not worth at all for me (countries where Apple Maps is not supported and Google maps is superior)

</comment><comment><USER21> I've been running the beta without issues for a while but I've PSA'd for my extended circle to say "definitely do a backup". I fully expect this to be a smooth transition but it's definitely an impactful change.

If you have less tech savvy members of your family with iPhones you might want to just remind them how to do a backup (to save having to explain why it's gone wrong).

</comment><comment><USER22> Just upgraded to 10.3 last night on my iPhone 7. Nothing works! iMessage doesn't work anymore, I can't even swipe up to toggle wifi/bluetooth, the menu pops up about 1/3 of the way and just freezes.

Twitter hangs when it starts to fetch new data.

Anyone else had these issues after upgrading to 10.3?

</comment><comment><USER23> Cricket scores in Siri! But only Indian Premier league. I want international games too.

<comment><USER24> You can ask Siri for "Latest ICC Cricket Scores" or more specifically like "India vs Australia Cricket Score" for international match updates.

<comment><USER23> I'm very happy about this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My iPad Pro only sees beta 7. I removed the device from the beta program a month ago, but it still sees the betas.

Rebooted several times. My iPhone 7s, and two older iPhones upgraded to 10.3, as well as another iPad. Why is the iPad Pro different?

<comment> X-Istence When you remove the device from the beta program, you have to re-install from scratch by restoring from a non-beta version.

If you had stayed on the beta program, you would now be upgraded to 10.3 automatically.

[https://beta.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/restore#ios](https://beta.apple.com/sp/betaprogram/restore#ios)

<comment><USER26> That's untrue. You can upgrade to a newer release version if there is one. (source: just did this today with 10.3)

You only need to restore if you want to downgrade to a release version when you are on a later beta.

<comment> X-Istence I have a device that I unregistered from the beta's and it never picked up a newer version, I had to manually restore it.

<comment> k-mcgrady I had the same issue but a manual reinstall wasn't necessary. I believe the problem was that in the developer > profiles menu there is a certificate for beta updates that needs removed. Something along those lines.

<comment><USER27> That is correct. You have to unregister yourself and remove that beta profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Just updated all my devices and I must admit that things feel snappier, even the 5.

<comment><USER29> How do you know it isn't the placebo effect? I once had one of my customers saying that a certain feature in my product was faster after an upgrade, but I hadn't actually touched that feature...

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Night Shift is cool but I wish to have a quick shortcut to toggle it or disable for some apps (like f.lux). Any idea how to control Night Shift via AppleScript?

<comment><USER31> Notifications menu on the very top(need to scoll up a bit for the hidden toggle switch to appear).

Super easy and smooth way to toggle Nightshift: I have the multi-touch gesture to open the Notifications menu with two-finger swipe from the right edge. Then I scroll up and turn on/off Night Shift.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just installed it myself and runs very smoothly. Also the changes in Safari are good especially interactive form validation.

</comment><comment><USER32> I just updated and was greeted with an Analytics screen asking to send usage and other telemetry data back to Apple. The first option to opt in was in large text while the second option to opt out was in very small text. Is this new? I don't recall seeing this screen before.

<comment><USER31> Been there for a long while now. Think it was introduced in iOS 7 with he UI redesign.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> "An error occurred installing iOS 10.3"

<comment><USER34> I got this error attempting an over-the-air update. I was forced to do a full install of iOS 10.3 using iTunes.</comment></comment>


No dependencies anymore. Start Postput in the blink of an eye - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/postput/postput <comment><AUTHOR> I decied to switch from postgresql to sqlite as database to remove the extenral dependency. Postput can now be launched directly.</comment>


I Was Google's Head of International Relations. Here's Why I Left - <AUTHOR> https://write.as/dsf4khx3r1m1208f.md <comment><USER2> This is a repost of an article with 300 comments here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21935446](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21935446)

<comment> trevor-e And this one doesn't even link to the Medium article, it's some other site that "sources" from it and doesn't even show the author's name. What's the point of write.as?

<comment><USER3> write.as can be used as a blog platform, or be used to write one-off, anonymous pieces of text.

In this case, I think OP was trying to improve the readability of the original article by using write.as as opposed to linking directly to Medium (which is notorious for its intrusiveness).

I think outline is better suited for these purposes, though, I typically just use Pocket or Firefox's built-in readability feature: [https://outline.com/Xbykpn](https://outline.com/Xbykpn)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't have firsthand knowledge, but my conjecture is that the old Google probably had a significant % of employees who held the belief "We shouldn't censor for China, even if that makes us lose money". But over a period of years, whatever they selected for in hiring led to enough people joining, who don't give a damn about human rights in China, so the censorship went ahead. The only thing that stopped it was bad press.

People with ethical sense leaving Google makes the balance worse. So the dealings with China will probably resume, at an even greater pace, when the public forgets about the first controversy. (edit: I should say first _two_ controversies, since they stopped censoring in 2010, then tried to resurrect it as Dragonfly in 2018, then stopped again)

<comment><USER5> > ethical sense

Define that. For regular people in China, does the addition of Google with some censorship make their life better? Does it improve information flow over existing domestic search engines? I think the answer is obvious.

People subscribe to overly simplistic thinking - if something is not perfect, it must be the worst. I see a lot of people promoting sanctions on a country because of government. Who gets hurt in this case? Ordinary people living their life.

<comment><USER6> > For regular people in China, does the addition of Google with some > censorship make their life better? Does it improve information flow over > existing domestic search engines? I think the answer is obvious.

What does that have to do with ethics, really? Your argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns.

> I see a lot of people promoting sanctions on a country because of > government. Who gets hurt in this case? Ordinary people living their life.

So do you think governments were wrong to sanction South Africa's apartheid regime? Do you not think that the ordinary people in South Africa have a better life today as a result of those sanctions and the collapse of the apartheid regime?

<comment><USER7> >What does that have to do with ethics, really? The argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns.

It's called utilitarianism and here it demonstrates nicely that ethics comes in various flavors

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Google, in my mind, is the quintessential "You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain" story.

(To be fair, since this all is subjective, I do believe Google 2009 would consider this behavior counter to it's values and the values of the people it attracted.)

The question I have is are there ways to stay true to values (which in some cases might be in direct opposition to growth and profit taking) with the way our society is structured? Has any major company pulled this off? (This reminds me a bit of the Boeing story posted a few days ago where quality lost out to dangerous shortcuts for profit)

<comment><USER9> I'm always a bit taken aback by the heat that Google gets for even thinking about breaking into the Chinese market. Microsoft is in China and has active US military contracts. Apple is in China. Yet it's Google that gets the bad rap for trying to get into China and then ultimately turning down billions of dollars in revenue and data.

<comment><USER10> The rest of them have been open about the fact they are ruthless profit making centers focused only on money and you shut up and stay in line or else you're toast. Google's model was "don't be evil" and for years went on the image that they are fighting for the public good and that they were an example of the ability to be principle centered, do good for the world, and get stinking rich at the same time. Now that the pressure starts to turn up on how to be profitable it turns out that everything they said they stood for, and more importantly the ideal that they represented, turned out to be a lie.

They were able to cash in on this image of moral superiority and principle first for years and it gave them a leg up, now that they have abandoned that fall more for it.

<comment><USER11> >They were able to cash in on this image of moral superiority and principle first for years and it gave them a leg up

okay but honestly how silly is it to take a company's branding to heart? like are we all children that believe in santa claus too?

>do good for the world, and get stinking rich at the same time

i'm old enough now to understand that these two things are mutually exclusive because the latter necessarily involves exploitation (thereby doing net evil rather than net good).

<comment><USER12> Doing good for the world and getting rich are by no means mutually exclusive. People pay money for products and services that make their lives better and history has shown that economic growth is not a zero-sum game.

Where companies get into ethical trouble is when they try to maintain exponential growth long after it is possible to do so in a way that is moral. You can make a lot of money doing good for the world, but you can't sustain exponential growth indefinitely without crossing a few lines.

<comment><USER11> >economic growth is not a zero-sum game.

economic growth is an abstraction. i'm not talking about abstract notions of good and evil.

some people believe that there are systems where entropy decreases too. their mistake is the same as yours: the system you're looking at isn't big enough. someone, somewhere, pays for your growth. either it's the employees that you underpay or it's the commons that you trash or it's the competitors whose coattails you're riding on or etc and etc and etc.

you can't point to a single product that doesn't incur this kind of entropy increase somewhere along its supply chain.

edit: i'm getting downvoted. would love to know where i'm mistaken (other than that i'm assailing capitalism).

<comment><USER13> I didn't downvote, but I agree with GP that growth isn't a zero sum game. If you create the right product, then you and the people who pay for your growth all end up better off than you were before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their desks. At an all-hands meeting, my boss said, "Now you Asians come to the microphone too. I know you don't like to ask questions." At a different all-hands meeting, the entire policy team was separated into various rooms and told to participate in a "diversity exercise" that placed me in a group labeled "homos" while participants shouted out stereotypes such as "effeminate" and "promiscuous." Colleagues of color were forced to join groups called "Asians" and "Brown people" in other rooms nearby._

What is this? I have worked in the valley in smaller companies, but this (the diversity exercises) takes the cake. Was there some context to this that is missing? Can anyone who participated throw more light?

<comment><USER15> The last time this was posted, someone found that it's an exercise based on a university study designed to address common stereotypes. The publishers of the study only tested it in an academic setting with students, though, and recommended that it not be done without a trained professional to guide the discussion. Google basically cargo-culted the experiment and assumed it would work in a corporate setting without the trained professionals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21935446](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21935446)

</comment><comment><USER17> The timing of his change of heart seems politically motivated so I'd take a lot of what's he saying with a grain of salt.

He doesn't disclose that he's running for Congress in the article and it seems very convenient to share these opinions as soon as he's running for office.

<comment><USER18> I disagree.

Running for Congress is consistent with his stated goal at the end of the article: "No longer can massive tech companies like Google be permitted to operate relatively free from government oversight. As soon as Google executives were asked by Congress about Project Dragonfly and Google's commitment to free expression and human rights, they assured Congress that the project was exploratory and it was subsequently shut down."

If he ended the article with, "Vote for me! Maine 2020!" It would sound highly self-serving. I believe he simply doesn't see his campaign as relevant to what he's writing here.

This is his retrospective on his time at Google.

He may post other things that combine the two, but this one is clearly focused on the things he experienced while working for one of the largest corporations in the world.

<comment><USER19> Let's not fall into the populist trap of painting everything corporations do with the worst intentions while offering no skepticism to someone trying to get our vote.

Both need to be evaluated critically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yes, Google isn't "don't be evil" anymore. People forget that what's left without Google is Microsoft, Oracle and the likes whose business strategy is outright racketeering.

Today I wanted to check out one of the services by Oracle - (Datafox), on the page it promotes free trial, just sign up for Oracle Cloud, give phone number, credit card all details ... after all is verified there's no service, you have to pay the says customer support rep. Can I delete my account and all the data I just gave you? No you can't, they'll stay here forever, you can upgrade to paid if not you're having this account.

At least Google gave away tons of cool technology free (TensorFlow, Chromium etc etc etc)

<comment><USER21> I looked at Oracle's page for Datafox and there's no mention of a trial anywhere. I searched on google for a trial and the only page that exists is one that is clearly from before Oracle bought Datafox and it doesn't even load properly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The easiest way to get to the top of HN seems to be joining Google, quitting, and writing about it.

</comment><comment><USER23> Never trust a large company. Big money always trumps ethics in the long run, as "ethics" is just a PR stunt at FAANG scale.

The big concern here is how Google, etc. are becoming an oligopoly with a very effective lobbying arm in any form of actual regulation.

While the Western world holds democratic-ish values in public institutions, its large private companies are indeed totalitarian regimes.

<comment><USER24> But trust the person who's writing a medium post just as they're about to run for senate and need to boost their name id?

<comment><USER23> That post is just one of many anecdata (to some degree of truth) out there about Google and other FAANG companies being "ethically challenged".

I remember having done a "computer and society" assignment about 14 years ago on Google and China. I also remember Microsoft's "Halloween Documents" (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) from early 2000s. And many other scenarios of Big Tech ignoring ethics.

In general, trust (like attention) is a limited resource to be used wisely.

<comment><USER24> I agree, but things also aren't as black and white as a lot of articles will try to make it. As pointed out in this very article, Google did leave China in 2010, leaving billions of dollar on the table. That is the exact opposite of "big money trumping ethics". Yes I realize they did explore returning to China last year, but it still isn't as cut and dry.

I'm not saying any of these FAANG companies are perfect, but I also don't like grand standing by people like this that really only case about advancing their own image for political reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> These sections really stood out to me:

"there is a significant difference between serving ads based on a Google search and working with the Chinese government on artificial intelligence or hosting the applications of the Saudi government, including Absher, an application that allows men to track and control the movement of their female family members."

This is a stark and honest way to put what Google is doing. These _are_ actually fundamental values at stake. Not just 'privacy'.

"Although the causes and the implications are worth debating, I am certain of the appropriate response. No longer can massive tech companies like Google be permitted to operate relatively free from government oversight."

So FMAGAN companies are weaponzied in the geopolitics. This sounds good when dropped over the wall, but when you try to play this out against the current state of the USA, it seems near certain to me to go horribly wrong.

I would much rather break them up - all the way. Whatever that means.

</comment><comment><USER26> Lets not forget that Google is not controlled by its shareholders. Due to its multi-class stock structure Sergey and Larry control the majority of the voting rights, what makes the "Dont be evil" slogan more to a personal motto of these to founders than to a company policy.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't know what the policy of Hacker News here, but this article is NOT attributed to its author and is "sourced" from the essay the author had published on Medium a few days prior. To me this suggests that the article might not have been reproduced here either by or with the permission of the author.

To be fair, I don't assume that there's any especial reason that Medium rather than 'Write As' deserves the traffic that the article might generate, but on the other hand as a way to bump traffic to your own website, republishing a popular article without permission seems a little sketchy.

</comment><comment><USER28> as i get older, i find myself more and more saying... it's just a job. i have no "moral code" anymore when it comes to what company i work for. i know they exist to make money and that what i do there... i just do my work, get my pay check and go home. i don't care what the company stands for or "making a difference" there. if i want to "make a difference" in my life, i'll do outside of work with my community. when i was young i wanted "change the world" at the place i worked at, that's no longer true.

</comment><comment><USER29> Requiring every product team to go through a central human rights review seems like a bad idea.

Not only would it be expensive (new overhead for lots of product teams), it would be counter productive.

Today the product leaders are accountable for the impact of their decisions, since they are the only ones who are making them.

If there's a central decision committee, the product leaders would be able abdicate their responsibility since they didn't fully make the decision.

Over time incentives will cause the the product leaders to push for more risky decisions, committee to get less risky, and the whole company to slow down.

<comment><USER30> Google had this, at least around 2010. Product teams would have to get the go- ahead from a bunch of interested parties like legal, security, internationalization, etc. Each of those parties controlled a "launch bit" (literally a checkbox) for each product launch.

<comment><USER29> Yeah I was there during that time too. Chasing down launchcal bits was really expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Every one of these stories always seems to have the common theme that at some point Google HR seems to step in in a really big-brother/creepy way and start saying the employee has been tagged for poor performance. It always seems to happen as soon as someone starts to get in the way of a "Do some Evil" project.

They also always seem to have this pattern of trying to move the person to a do-nothing job to try and keep the whole thing quiet.

It's really, really creepy. Kind of makes you want to put Google on a "Do not ever ever interview with" list.

</comment><comment><USER32> I would love to know how you effectively run a 100,000 person company, particularly when they are all knowledge workers as opposed to retail, food service, etc.

Is google well run? How do you tell?

</comment><comment><USER33> "I saw them(Don't be evil) used to guide product designs that put the company's success above a user's privacy, such as during the development of Google's ill-fated social network, Buzz"

Isn't it ironic that Buzz had major privacy issues - [https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buzz-privacy- nightmare/](https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buzz-privacy-nightmare/)

<comment><USER34> Was that a typo? Did he mean to say "put the user's privacy above the company's success"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > I was told there was no longer a job for me as a result of a > "reorganization,"

He writes as if his morals made him leave but he basically left only because he was fired.

</comment><comment><USER36> This guy has actually been a senior member of the organization that he's complaining has done bad things. He didn't prevent those things nor does he have a compelling narrative of working within the organization to change its path.

Mostly he just collected his cash, and is now writing a transparently self serving piece as he begins his run for elected office.

No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER37> It is sickening but not surprising that these Wall Street & executive types put profits about human suffering & human rights. I wish more countries that claim to have hold human rights as a central value of their county's morality would put their money where their mouth is to regulate these modern day supervillains.

</comment><comment><USER38> After reading, I can't help but wonder if this dismissive attitude Google (and others) have towards social and political issues such as censorship, privacy, diversity, etc. has something to do with the hiring model. I can't speak for other departments but in terms of engineering, competency in algorithms and system design are the only things that are screened for. These aren't well rounded people. They aren't leaders. They're not screened to think beyond the immediate task at hand which shouldn't leave us surprised when they fail to see beyond the objective. In some ways, it would be akin to colleges looking exclusively at SAT scores instead of the whole person.

In this process though, what I believe might be getting lost is any sense of ethics, purpose or vision beyond code. One has to wonder if that's in these companies' long-term best interests to pursue the best leetcoders at the expense of other skills. I won't pretend to have an answer as to how those skills are screened for but it's evident from what I've experienced that there isn't any expectation beyond writing code at all.

</comment><comment><USER39> I can't help but think that people are thinking about this the wrong way. Today, activists in China understand that the internet is not a safe place to engage in activist activities without extreme precautions. This was less well understood a decade ago and Yahoo really messed up when they handed over account information for an activist. I think Google entering China makes a lot of sense now, is an interesting technical and linguistic problem (how do you build an incredible search engines in a radically different language) and a worthwhile business aim (getting a foothold into the most important economy in the world).

Also, to suggest, at this point, that US agencies haven't harmed an incredible number of people by co-opting information from tech companies and service providers would be absurd. Although companies sometimes contemplate how to protect their users (which doubtlessly Google would do in China), this essentially never blocks anyone from starting a company here.

</comment><comment><USER40> What is write.as? As why is the author's name not in the article?

</comment><comment><USER41> "Source from medium".... Medium is also getting worse and worse. After 3 articles or so you are forced to pay or open an incognito tab....

</comment><comment><USER42> I never understand these pieces. To me they read like "I sold my soul to work for xxxxx, made my 'f__k you' money, and now I want my soul back."

</comment><comment><USER43> Are there any good companies on the stock market? Seems like inevitably they either go under or inch further towards evil over time.

</comment><comment><USER44> I just want to cite this, for those who have voiced on HN the thesis that conservative opinions will get you fired in tech, but liberal opinions are "safe":

> Standing up for women, for the LGBTQ community, for colleagues of color, and > for human rights — had cost me my career.

I would love if some other conservatives present, who care about free speech, could voice some support for this guy. It would help me feel unified with you, and want to support you more in "James Damore"-type situations.

</comment><comment><USER45> This guy is no saint. He stayed for many years after the company became terminally infested by "greed is good" Wall Street Thinking. He was in the best position to see this, and yet he stayed until long after the scandals had all broken. No sympathy for this guy who is the pot calling the kettle black. ...

<comment><USER46> So which is better, to abandon ship at the first sign of trouble, or to attempt to correct things?

From what I can tell, he continually attempted to steer Google away from business in China, even after things started going downhill. To my mind, that takes quite a bit of bravery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Its great to hear people inside also seen where Google is going.

</comment><comment><USER48> Shared this in my company slack. Everyone should read this

</comment><comment><USER49> He left.... because he got fired.

I get that he could have sued to get some type of fake (reduced role) job back, but.... the blog would be better if he didn't make it sound it was 100% his choice.

<comment><USER32> Headline matters 10x more than the content I have read, as people won't read more than a paragraph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'll just say it.

Google you are being run by fools. Godspeed.

</comment><comment><USER51> And yet you kept all the drug money.

</comment><comment><USER52> >>> Is it in some way related to the corruption that has gripped our federal government? Is this part of the global trend toward "strong man" leaders who are coming to power around the globe, where questions of "right" and "wrong" are ignored in favor of self-interest and self-dealing?

Has the US federal government suddenly become more corrupt? Is he trying to tie this back to Trump?

</comment><comment><USER53> Who cares why you left.

<comment><USER54> he's running for senate in Maine. The blog post is probably a part of his campaign</comment></comment>


I'm a 21 YO and have made a smart maze solving robot. Ask Me Anything - <AUTHOR> https://techama.com/im-a-21-yo-and-have-made-a-smart-maze-solving-robot-ask-me-442128/ <comment><USER2> I hate to be a dick, but in this day and age, this isn't a huge accomplishment.</comment>


Amazon's Alexa Has 80k Apps and No Runaway Hit - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-11/amazon-s-alexa-has-80-000-apps-and-no-runaway-hit <comment><USER2> The problem is that Alexa is just a consumer voice command line. UI discoverability is impossible, and everything that you can do is just a utility that does something else. There are no native apps because everything that it can do is just an IO to something else. If they actually get conversational, this will change, but until then, it's just a command line with no man page.

<comment><USER3> > The problem is that Alexa is just a consumer voice command line. UI > discoverability is impossible, and everything that you can do is just a > utility that does something else.

In a way, I think it's even worse than that. I've used Alexa since the Echo was a relatively new product. Back then, I experimented with new phrases and commands often, but was frequently greeted with wrong answers or "Sorry, I don't know how to help with that." Over time, I stopped trying those commands. Skip forward to today--the backend has been improving for years, and many of those commands now work, but it's too late. Their users have already been taught that they don't, so folks stop trying to use those features. Not only can you not discover new commands easily, you might mentally blacklist useful commands permanently.

Perhaps more frustratingly, the "What's New" emails they send out don't help with this. They never say "Hey, we know you tried to ask your Echo to report its volume level before and it didn't work, but it does now." They always say "Ask Alexa to tell you an Arbor Day joke!" -_-

<comment><USER4> It would be pretty cool if it could update you on things you've asked for in the past that were not possible then but are now possible.

"Hey, 3 months ago you asked for the forecast according to the ECMWF weather model, and I couldn't answer you. But now I can, so go ahead and try!".

<comment><USER5> I wonder if that is too far on the "creepy scale". Everyone probably knows that Amazon has a full record of everything they have asked their Alexa, but I am not sure it is smart to repeatedly remind people of this.

<comment><USER6> Phrasing comes into play here. Instead of:

> "Hey, 3 months ago you asked for the forecast according to the ECMWF weather > model, and I couldn't answer you. But now I can, so go ahead and try!".

What might work more effectively is

"We've been improving our weather forecasting and you can now get the forecast in your area according to a range of new models, including the often requested ECMWF weather model! Give it a try now!"

<comment><USER7> This attempt to obscure the fact that it's actually super-targeted can also backfire too, though. It wouldn't take too many of them for a savvy user to be like... now wait a minute.

Thinking back to this classic where Target figures out the trick to not creeping out someone they suspect may be pregnant is to shuffle the maternity coupons in with a bunch of other random stuff: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how- targ...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target- figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did)

<comment><USER8> Relevant quotes:

What Target discovered fairly quickly is that it creeped people out that the company knew about their pregnancies in advance.

"If we send someone a catalog and say, 'Congratulations on your first child!' and they've never told us they're pregnant, that's going to make some people uncomfortable," [snip] So Target got sneakier about sending the coupons. The company can create personalized booklets; [snip]

"Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We'd put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We'd put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance. And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn't been spied on, she'll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don't spook her, it works."

<comment><USER9> > As long as we don't spoil her it works.

Sounds much closer to hunting, literally targeted marketing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My Echo was an interesting novelty at first. But a couple years in now, it is essentially (in order of usefulness):

1\. An alarm clock / kitchen timer

2\. A thing that tells me the weather report during morning coffee, so I know what to wear

3\. A DJ that my kids yell at to play pop music

If it died tomorrow, I'd probably just go back to using my phone for these 3 things rather than buy a new one. I can't imagine getting into it enough to explore third-party "skills".

<comment><USER11> Pretty much the same for me, although I'll add (I have Google Homes but pretty much the same thing):

1\. Metric / imperial conversions, especially in the kitchen - this is one feature that is miles better than using a phone or computer if my hands are dirty cooking something and I want to know how many grams 12 ounces is or something like that.

2\. Intercom between my 2 google homes, one in my kitchen and one in our converted attic playroom - it's so much nicer to use Google home to call my kids down for dinner vs. screaming up two flights of stairs.

3\. Making quick phone calls

4\. Finding my phone - I lose my phone constantly, and it's super handy that I can get my google home to make it ring even if it's on silent.

<comment><USER12> Agreed on the kitchen part. Once I moved my google home (mini) into the kitchen it got more useful.

* Setting multiple alarms (why can't apple do this??)

* Conversions

* Food questions

I think it would be rad if I could feed it a recipe and then have it read me the ingredients and instructions for each step. Maybe that exists?

<comment><USER13> > * Setting multiple alarms (why can't apple do this??)

It launched without that ability but an update sometime last year lets you set multiple alarms.

<comment><USER12> Sorry that should have been timers. If I tell Siri to set a timer (while a timer is running) it still asks if I want to change the timer or leave it alone.

<comment><USER13> You can set multiple timers in Siri. At least on a Homepod.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I bought an Echo speaker when they first came out. The sound quality is impressive (to my untrained ear), but the development experience is not.

The first thing I wanted to do was to add a feature so I could add a task to my to-do list software which is not supported by Alexa. It turns out that you cannot construct a sentence along the lines of "Tell Asana to add a task: <task>". You can't actually have a 'slot' which contains a freeform piece of text, even if it is the last piece of text in the sentence.

The Alexa API differs between regions, so the North America version of the API supports this but the EU version doesn't. It was removed from the NA version for a while but placed back after a bit of an uproar.

I think you could develop some more useful stuff using Alexa if only this feature was consistently available. I cannot think of a good reason why it isn't.

I now just mainly have it as a Spotify speaker, and occasionally I use it as an expensive egg timer. I normally have it on mute because I find it activates and starts recording private conversations. I don't see it getting better.

<comment><USER15> _" You can't actually have a 'slot' which contains a freeform piece of text_"

What about AMAZON.SearchQuery?

<comment><USER16> This is the correct solution. The Alexa Skills Kit contains the Amazon.SearchQuery slot which meets your needs, but Lex doesn't. This is one of the two missing slots from Alexa in Lex. If you read articles regarding Lex slots you might get inaccurate info as they are slightly differing products.

<comment><USER14> Thanks, I just did some searching and found that this was added in February 2018 - I think I gave up on my project in 2017 so it now looks like I could program something like what I wanted. I still have the source code so that's nice.

However I'm just thinking of getting rid of my Alexa devices anyway - I was discussing political events with my partner last night, spotted the Alexa device light up (I think I said "a letter") and noticed shortly after that I was moderating my speech and not referencing controversial topics. I later just set it on mute.

<comment><USER17> For research: have another device perform "audio fuzzing" of Alexa, trying random phrases. Use a camera to look for Alexa turning on. Bonus points, check the list of Alexa recordings (via web interface) to confirm 1:1 relationship between device activation and recorded file. Publish the inadvertent "watchlist" of phrases, monitor over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have several, along with Google Home too. They all suffer from the same issue: it's awkward to use with third party skills. Unless they are the highly integrated ones (Spotify, Logitech Harmony) in which case it's great.

It's the same for Siri, the API is so restrictive.

The whole "tell XX to YY" isn't convenient.

One workaround on Google Home is to use IFTTT, and in that case you can customize the whole phrase and response, and then it's pretty nice, even though the latency is high.

"-Okay Google, open the blinds -Sure thing Commander" never gets old.

<comment><USER19> Absolutely. Until the voice assistants become a bit more intelligent with the language used to activate them, it feels so rigid and un-natural communicating with them.

I don't see a great future for voice assistants in the near future, until we truly solve the problem of intent (in a natural way) and accordingly can respond.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure if it's a question of intelligence, or a question of business.

I can't imagine Amazon would hand the "Alexa, order more bread" keyword over to Instacart/Wal-Mart/whoever without a fight.

<comment><USER21> Hopefully google or apple might.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Despite often seeming like a thin veneer of natural language processing on top of a search engine, I'm sure most users think of their voice assistants, or are willing them to be, a general AI agent. They don't want to have to care what app/skill/web-scrape is involved in enabling a response.

The whole skills ecosystem feels like an awkward stopgap on the path to AI. The language required to invoke them feels particularly clunky - "Alexa, ask ThingFinder about a thing" \- and then, is the user supposed to be talking to ThingFinder now, or Alexa? She still sounds like Alexa, but she doesn't seem quite herself.

As developer choosing an invocation name is fraught with difficulty. There are only so many natural sounding names for something which does a particular thing, without incongruously inserting some invented branding word onto it - "Alexa open Tidy Tide Tables". If someone's already using the most natural name you are free to use exactly the same, but then who knows whose skill will be launched? And you'd better make sure your skill's name doesn't clash with anything else in the world at large, like the entire history of music for example, "Alexa play Wicked Game". It's all a bit of a mess.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, that's a good point. People are good at mentally compartmentalizing behaviors with personalities. If Alexa doesn't allow each agent to have a personality, people are going to have a hard time keeping the behaviors straight.

Kinda reminds me of Neuromancer, where a superintelligent AI was broken into two pieces to avoid detection. One part was good at personality, and the other part had to mimic people in order to communicate. It was very unnerving for people to talk to an AI that was copying the personality of someone they knew.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Alexa is just an input/output device. It is limited, which is OK but that means there will not be a 'runaway hit'. There's just not enough of a surface area for something so comprehensive.

It's like saying 'There are 80k mouse enabled apps and no runaway hit'.

What it can do is have an app for nearly anything, though, that makes sense for the form factor. It's on its way. The next step of its evolution is to look at what apps work and what conventions can be pulled from those as a general standard. Users will be much happier when they can nearly instantly download an Alexa enabled interface for an app and have it work intuitively. And this is doubly important for Alexa because there isn't deep feedback like you have with a mouse where you can see the things you aren't doing to gather hints at what's possible -- you just have to know or, at least know how to find the answer, like a command line.

Which gives me an idea 'man for Alexa'. At least we can standardize a help menu.

<comment><USER25> I don't believe your comparison really works. A mouse is useless on its own. An Alexa device can operate on its own.

I do agree with your latter sentiment. It does feel like a command line at times. More so like trying to figure out a text adventure game. Zork would be very difficult if you didn't know the basic functions/words. That's what Alexa feels like most of the time for me. I'd love a help menu.

<comment><USER26> > An Alexa device can operate on its own.

Only if you conveniently ignore the AWS services it uses.

<comment><USER25> Pedantic. I conveniently ignored the electricity it uses as well. :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Anecdotally a developer friend of mine strongly suspects, most people, are like him and not actually using these home speakers very much.

I've been working on a an Audio App that reads any articles to you for iOS/Android and planned to bring it to the Echo and he seems to suggest my efforts are totally wasted. Although their market reach seems to be massive, likely related to their cheap price, not surprised by this article that their actual usage is incredibly low. Most people seem to buy them and then forget about them.

As a shameless self plug, if you would like to check out my app that reads articles to you using beautiful sounding AI/ML, find it here:

[https://articulu.com](https://articulu.com)

<comment><USER28> I'm using the timer, alarm, hue integration for my lights, music and weather.

Those are by far my killer features why i use it and why i like it.

I haven't looked at any amazon skill store as i don't see any reason for it.

<comment><USER29> Playing songs/podcasts from Spotify on Echo while controlling it from my phone/computer is my favourite use of the speaker now. Ironically this action involves no voice commands whatsoever except occasionally telling the speaker to pause/resume/adjust volume when I'm away from my phone/computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Alexa needs a PageRank and an 'I'm feeling lucky' that is successful the majority of the time.

I would like it to work as a room of human experts works with a moderator.

Alexa, how long will it take me to cycle to Netto?

Alexa sends this parsed query out to all apps it thinks can answer.

They respond with a confidence level and answer / follow up question.

Alexa decides which app to choose (the 'PageRank') based on a number of factors like has the query been seen before and how did each app perform for it, the app's answer success rate, has the user been given a response from this app before etc. etc.

The user should not have to install apps. Alexa should know all of the apps in the room and what they're good/bad at and select one to respond.

Surely discovery is the wrong way to think about this problem and Alexa needs to be elevated from a good speech parser.

<comment><USER31> Oh I like this twist on things. The difficulty is how do you prevent your data/query going to a place you wouldn't want it to go to?

<comment><USER30> Very true, the privacy implications would need to be carefully considered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I was taking with a friend who said ,"people use Alexa like a toaster, we haven't found what this interface will be really good at"

But what if it /is/ just a toaster? Tech people tend to have high hopes for technology but technology must serve a purpose and it will go the way of the dodo if the purpose of not strong or clear. For me, having a voice interface for music and calls is enough justification for such a device, and I assume this is true for others as well. It's a classic case of over-engineering and then shopping around for a use case for the 25-use Swiss army knife that no one asked for.

<comment><USER33> I don't think it's enough justification--you can get a "dumb" bluetooth- or wifi-enabled speaker to hook up with the voice-enabled smartphone you already have in your pocket. The value proposition for an Alexa or Google Home has to be over and above that functionality.

<comment><USER6> The smart speaker is always fixed in place, always listening, always ready to play and independent of anything else.

Your phone needs to be in range of the 'dumb' speaker, needs to be paired to it / connected to the same wireless network, can't be used for any other audio functions, and probably can't be in your pocket if you want it to be listening for voice commands. It now also can't be trained to your voice specifically if you have others in your home who want to use it, which makes it ripe for abuse whenever you leave the home.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've written 15-20 Alexa apps, some public, most for running parts of my life / house.

A big part of the problem for a long time with developing Alexa skills is that if you needed to know where the user was, having them enable location permissions was insane. It required the user to have the Alexa app installed (which almost no one does), then navigate 3-4 fairly technical looking screens and finally flip a switch.

I recently wrote a demo app for a friend's company that needed to know where the user was, and I jumped through a bunch of hoops for an otherwise simple task to avoid the app-permissions-dance. The app I wrote was demoed to the Alexa team by my friend (his company was doing a deal for the company's data to be supplied to Amazon), and the feedback he got from the Alexa execs was they know the location permissions process was a big issue.

I _think_ it's gotten better recently with the redesign of the Alexa app, but I haven't checked it out yet - I don't have any desire to release a public Alexa app. I just to keep my stuff in developer mode and customized to my needs.

<comment><USER35> The thing I'm missing is location within the house. If I'm in the bedroom I should be able to tell my bedroom Alexa "turn on the lights", and the same for the kitchen Alexa. Having to repeat the same incantation over and over is frustrating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Alexa is a glorified lighting management system for me. Given it's current capabilities, that's all it's going to be for the foreseeable future. Oh, I'll ask it the weather sometimes, but come on - what can Alexa really do that's all that compelling, that already isn't a capability of Siri/Google?

<comment><USER37> I don't have an Alexa myself, I'm a Google Home user. One thing that's always impressed me is the ability of Alexa to order things from Amazon just by issuing voice commands. Although, I'm sure that comes with its own host of problems, especially if you're not just ordering a generic product.

<comment><USER38> You can order things from Amazon using Alexa but you can't delete items from your cart using Alexa. For me this makes it useless. Not being able to delete items makes it user unfriendly. Unless Amazon changes this I'm not going to use Alexa.

<comment><USER39> Nor add to wish lists, or move to saved items, or move from saved items to cart, etc. The UI interaction model is in early days for sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The Alexa's timeline is likely much longer and deeper than a lot of the commentators here are aware of. Specifically, the lives of disabled people have been greatly enhanced with the Echo-dot specifically. The vision impaired/blind community has been very receptive to voice command tech [0][1]. Though these devices are not the commercial hit that many expect them to be, any nod towards the disabled community is greatly appreciated.

Personally, I think that the challenges that disabled people face are great for all people. Thinking through all the permutations that real people with disabilities face opens up tech to new ways of interaction and design. The canonical example is the little ramp on the street corner, where the side walk and street interface. It was designed for wheelchairs originally, but the elderly, bicyclists, delivery men with trolleys, and all manner of people use them as an improvement in their lives.

If Amazon focused on the disabled and their use cases for the Echo-dot, I think that they would find many other applications that enhance all of our lives. It may not be an 'essential' thing for the fully-abled, at least not consciously, but the enhancements are enjoyed by all and well worth the costs. Perhaps tech that focuses on the hearing impaired (the number one disability in the world), or the voice impaired, or amputees, may help all of us lead richer and fuller lives.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDcvqfwOxOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDcvqfwOxOE)

[1] [https://www.pcmag.com/news/358338/why-amazons-alexa-is- life-...](https://www.pcmag.com/news/358338/why-amazons-alexa-is-life- changing-for-the-blind)

<comment><USER41> But what about the privacy concerns of this technology, especially from Amazon? My fiance needs voice-to-text software for accessibility reasons -- does that mean that in order to get her the best accessibility software, we have to sacrifice our privacy by placing Amazon's always-listening microphones around the house? I know she won't let me do that; even if I'm willing to compromise on my principles for her sake, she won't compromise hers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> When I turn down the Alexa because of music but then I ask Alexa what is the weather, it is the same volume as down and I cant hear it. Then I have to say increase volume and then ask Alexa again.

This is small but I think defines the missing design principle of Alexa. Yes I want the music to be low when Im doing active 1, but the introduction of new action of knowing the weather I need to hear it. These are the little "smart" features that are needed for a product that Amazon is striving for needs.

Edit: I actually say Echo because I think we should stop personifying technology.

<comment><USER43> How is the device or software supposed to deduce your wants without your expressing them? How does it know what you can and cannot hear, and that you chose to turn down the music (rather than explicitly turn it off) because it was distracting to some other activity rather than because that was the optimal setting for hearing the music while not waking a sleeping baby in your arms? And when it decides to shout the weather rather than voice it at the same level of the music which results in waking the baby, how "smart" is that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> * Setting a timer or an alarm

* Asking for the weather

* Play some (desired) music

Are there other things that these devices ("smart speakers") are really useful for?

A voice activated browser or computer, on the other hand, is extremely useful for those who don't know to type or to use a browser (or a computer). It could be people who are not privileged enough to learn or people who find these very difficult to learn or even small kids. These systems allow the user to accomplish what they want (like searching or opening a website or a game, for example).

<comment><USER45> I'm very skeptical about this as well but an argument I saw on here that I found kinda convincing was a comparison to the usual job of a "secretary". Most interactions are verbal and there's a wide variety of tasks that can be solved that way. The real problem is trust in an automated system handling those correctly, which is solvable.

Think, for example, sorting your email inbox by "importance", not based on some flags or fixed heuristics but an actual, intelligent scan of the contents. Think of having reasonable phone conversations that result in scheduling appointments and answering concrete questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> A lot of people are mentioning discoverability as an issue. That is a core issue. Same with understanding (the idea of once you discover something exists, how easy is it to understand how to fully use it?). Beyond that, we have issues with memorability. It's hard to memorize how to properly even use these voice apps once you learn for the first time.

Here is a full rubric for whether or not a product is well designed: [https://uxdesign.cc/the-design-critique-rubric-how-to- determ...](https://uxdesign.cc/the-design-critique-rubric-how-to-determine-if- something-is-well-designed-9421db59f982)

The hardest part might be that most apps for Alexa aren't privledged. You can't just ask Alexa to do the new skill. You have to first open the skill and then ask that skill to do something. "Alexa open the Food Planner app." This hitch in the process makes memorability very poor.

I am an advanced Alexa user, and I almost never use any skills. They just aren't integrated very well. The one I do use is Sonos (and Spotify to power it), which is given priveldged access and allows me to attach an Echo Dot and Sonos speakers to the same room in my house, so that when I say, "Alexa, play The Beatles," Alexa plays the Beatles in the room it hears me in on my Sonos speakers with music from Spotify.

When you use a combo like this, it feels pretty magical, but most of Alexa can't operate like this, so it feels really stitled, and the user experience is quite poor.

</comment><comment><USER47> The problem is the interface. Voice commands and their responses are linear, one dimensional. It's difficult to represent complex interaction within that scope. Think of all the investment that has gone into telephone based automated customer support. The best interface conceived so far is the dreaded phone tree. That's essentially the same interface smart speakers are exposing.

The opportunity is to figure out how to better utilize the voice based medium. No one has done it yet. When they do, it will also likely improve the experience around screen readers and accessibility.

<comment><USER48> The medium of voice is very rich and capable when talking to a human, so this is something limited by the intelligence of the system you're interacting with.

<comment><USER49> Is it? I mean, some folks do great talking. Lots of them. Most are in narrative communication. If you get much beyond that, you jump to physical interesting quickly. Even telling is benefited with gestures. Consider how vague most spoken directions are. When you can augment with pointing, things are easier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Maybe the problem is with the entire concept of distinct, discrete apps. Voice as an "interface" is based around conversation, not functional blocks and clickable items. A truly enjoyable and useful Alexa would have a conversation with you - even if a practical and transactional one - and the various functions and "apps" would be woven seamlessly into that, just as a human assistant might learn a new skill and work it helpfully into the conversation.

</comment><comment><USER51> A lot of people don't even realize the Alexa mobile app _even exists_ , despite the fact they must have installed it at one point in order to set up their Echo device. Hence, discoverability is pretty low. I don't know why Amazon still hasn't attempted to address this issue. If all they want is for people to buy shit from Amazon through it, why bother with all these custom "skills"?

Generally, however, I think we've overestimated the utility of a voice command line with no actual intelligence behind it. Unless you are using Alexa to control actual devices like lights or a Roobma vacuum, most of the apps for it are either useless or better suited for a visual interface.

<comment><USER52> I think it could be incredibly useful if it wasn't like talking to someone who is hard of hearing, comically misinterprets similarly sounding words and can't understand basic logic in sentences (what's the weather _and_ traffic, then find my phone and turn off the lights).

I'd like to ask it the meaning of Latin phrases or other words, but it just hears the words used 99% of the time despite being clearly pronounced differently.

Ask it what bus and at which time I should leave to go somewhere. It doesn't have any transportation info and can't do basic logic.

Duolingo would be a great integration for conversations while learning another language, but it can bearly understand English.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I think voice is underutilized as a 3rd, powerful complimentary interface; mouse and keyboard being the first and second. A smart speaker doesn't enable me to be more productive on the tool I use most, my computer.

I'm building something that I think is much more powerful than smart speakers for the following reasons.

1\. It's software and lives on the hardware that you already have... your computer. It's not a standalone hardware device silo'd from the existing tooling you use daily.

2\. It provides visual feedback (live transcription, with colors indicating what's understood), because it can. Smart speakers can't.

3\. It's a browser extension, so it easily integrates with all the webapps that you use daily: gmail, google docs, hacker news... any webapp you want it to.

4\. Plugins are intuitive to develop and open-source so anyone can build off and improve them ([https://github.com/lipsurf/plugins](https://github.com/lipsurf/plugins))

It's a work in progress, but in case anyone is interested: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lipsurf-voice- cont...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lipsurf-voice-control- for/lnnmjmalakahagblkkcnjkoaihlfglon?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER54> I've spent a lot of time thinking about monetization on voice-assist apps. This is a challenging problem, and I suspect it's holding AAA quality 3rd party support for the platforms behind. There is no stand alone (from a mobileapp/webapp) voice-assist app that has brought in significant revenue. I'm going to break down some of the most common attempts at revenue and describe their pitfalls.

* Sell Audio (Spotify, Audible, MP3 style): If the goal is to get into this business than you'll have much better reach if you sell on smartphones. The voice-assist app will be supplementary at best.

* Sell products (Amazon/Ebay style): People aren't generally comfortable buying products with voice-assist. You'll have to compete directly with Amazon.

* Market products (In-line advertising style): You'll have to generate a lot of original content to plug sponsored products. The original content will have to be very compelling. It's probably more appealing to host the original content somewhere else primarily.

* Sell audio advertisement: What make the voice-assist platform compelling for content consumption? How can you create a very engaging voice-assist app? Will people tolerate audio advertisements? They tend to consume more time and be less interesting than visual ads.

</comment><comment><USER55> I find it quicker to enter commands on my phone for most things. One skill I thought would be really useful was "Alexa, hows my commute?" but without a way to go in and 'star' specific trains it would tell me about trains leaving in the next few minutes which isn't helpful!

I also cant often remember what I'm supposed to say and I sometimes forget my words as if I've been put on the spot somehow. Overall its not a pleasant user experience.

</comment><comment><USER56> Disclaimer: I haven't played with this since 2016, so may be out of date.

Having played with the Alexa and Google home. My take on why there are no hits is that it's very clunky to invoke apps, especially for one-off queries.

"Hey, Alexa/Google, Ask <keyword> to do <blah>" or some variation on that. Starting an app and then interacting with it works fine for some use cases but not all.

It really needs to be a flow of install app for given type of task, say searching for a hotel, and then like Android, there are defaults. So I say "hey alexa, find me a hotel room in blah" and it just knows to hand off to whatever my favourite is.

So long as all the core easy commands are only accessible to Google/Amazon, this is going to continue to be a problem.

<comment><USER57> And it hasn't really changed since 2016 so that is still mostly spot on.

I think the real problem though is that people aren't good at remembering voice commands, either how to invoke the command or that the command even exists. Without visual cues it's easy to forget everything.

You're not going to have a runaway hit when it's predicated on everyone remembering that special thing to say. It's like trying to have a runaway hit that had to be based on a keyboard shortcut.

All of those services are great for the basics, e.g. How's the weather / set a timer / remind me in N minutes / order toilet paper ... Everything else is a bit tougher in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> The problem is that the trigger for 3rd party skills sucks.

Saying "Alexa, ask [Whatever skill name] to do something" is really unnatural and ruins the whole user experience.

They need sort out the grammar to make it actually feel conversational.

<comment><USER59> Yep. It's a pain to have to say "Alexa, ask Chevrolet to start my car". Why can't I just say "Alexa, start my car". Clearly it's the only car related skill...

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> The problem seems to be there is no barrier to entry. Say what you like about Apple's app store, at least they have standards that are enforced, and to a certain extent Google as well. Windows, and the Microsoft app store, on the other hand, suffers the same problem of quality control and lack of curation as Alexa skills. There are _some_ gems, and Amazon have put effort into making Alexa and the Echo devices useful out of the box with their default skills/commands. I've also never had issues with the smart home skills for various devices I have around the house. However, it's a telling statistic that there are over 50 'fart' skills, [0] half of which are rated at three stars or above.

And of course, although stricter curation and quality control would fix this, it would cut the number of skills down hugely, maybe even to 1% of the current size, so the app store looks tiny and people don't bother with the platform. See also Metcalfe's law [1] and network effects...

0\. [https://www.amazon.com/s?k=alexa+skill+fart&crid=2KFJ9DO3N51...](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=alexa+skill+fart&crid=2KFJ9DO3N51JM&sprefix=fart+alexa+%2Caps%2C207&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_11)

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law)

<comment><USER35> Amazon constantly runs "hackathons" with thousands of dollars of prizes to the winners and free echos just for playing. When I did it there were probably a hundred projects that were along the lines of "hi Alexa my name is John" "hi John I like you" (or similar effort). And all of them got into the store and all of them got free echos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I couldn't name a "runaway hit/killer app", but my gf and I get plenty of use from our Echo(s). Nothing we couldn't or didn't do prior to getting them, but we genuinely find the voice interface often wins out over reaching for our phones. We use it:

• as an alarm clock

• as a radio in the morning, podcast/audiobook player in the evening

• arithmetic - e.g. when planning trips we might ask "Alexa, what's 100 Malyasian Ringgit it pounds sterling?", more conveniently than flipping to xe.com or a phone app and an answer we both hear. When cooking we might ask for weight conversions, during DIY we might ask for cm to inches, etc

• to control Hue lighting in two rooms

• to control our TV/amp/satellite ("Alexa, pause|mute the TV/set TV to channel 503/etc"). I used to love my Harmony universal remote but found it pretty cumbersome to manage, and my gf could _never_ get the hang of it like she can "Alexa, turn on/off Sky"

• to play music when I'm wfh

Rather than a hit skill/application, I'd say voice is a superior interface when doing other, dextrous stuff - getting dressed, using the hair dryer, feeding the cat, cooking, washing up, gardening, DIY, etc. Asking for the lights to turn on (the switches are not near the front door) when arriving home in the dark, saying "Alexa, goodnight" rather than turning off 4 lights and 3 devices, etc.

The only thing I dislike about it is how it fires up I'm watching WWE and the commentators use Alexa Bliss's name.

</comment><comment><USER62> I think the whole voice activation hype inflated itself where people are naturally wanting to see the next big thing and of course people used this as an example - the title says it all.

Furthermore we need to look at what makes voice less restrictive and that's making it instant. They are still reliant on it being cloud / web based which creates a lag and makes it awkward and nothing like 'talking to something or someone '

</comment><comment><USER63> It does. Skyrim for Alexa. [https://youtu.be/BQl3T0uD5Aw](https://youtu.be/BQl3T0uD5Aw)

</comment><comment><USER64> I followed and even used the tool StoryLine (which is now the enterprise tool [https://www.invocable.com/](https://www.invocable.com/)). They had a very active Facebook group that I watched for awhile. The problem I found was that the tool made it too easy to build apps for Alexa. People would put out really junky apps that were the equivalent of fart apps long ago. Now some may argue that all app platforms need to go through this stage but I'd argue Alexa is different. The iPhone, pre app store days, provided other utility that was the driving force behind buying the phone. Alexa is seemingly reliant on 3rd party apps (with a few very minor exceptions ex. timers, weather etc) and therefore if there is no "killer app" what is the motivation to buy one?

</comment><comment><USER65> "Alexa, set timer for 14 minutes." Great for keeping my iPhone clean while I'm cooking. Otherwise I'd have to try and convince Siri to set a timer...

(But yeah, i agree - definitely nothing very innovative about it. I don't really think voice control is ever going to be the next big thing)

</comment><comment><USER66> This is looking at Alexa, most likely in smart speaker or some variant form, as the endgame which I don't think it is.

My guess is that it and its competition is more or less a MVP to use audio for input and output and to understand how users interact with this "new" form of input. In a similar way to how Google Search and the various add ins they implemented for it along the way informs Google Assistant, so too I think these are stepping stones for something else.

So I don't think the expectation is to have a runaway hit app, but rather to have a product that users will actively engage with. And considering they're making huge pushes into smart home product integration with Alexa, I really don't see how any of it could be viewed as cautionary... from Amazon's viewpoint anyway.

</comment><comment><USER29> For nearly two years since me and my family owned Amazon Echo speakers, the Android app was practically just a browser wrapper that frequently loaded slowly or wouldn't load at all (this issue is now mostly addressed wtih a redesigned native-ish Android app but I'm afraid it may be too late). Looking for new apps was an excruciating experience and navigating menus inside the app was bad. I gave up soon after and have since only used the app to reconfigure network settings for the speaker.

I only use the speaker for casting music/podcasts, listening to news briefings, and timer/alarm/weather queries. Amazon Echo and Google Home do these basic functions well but I'd imagine they weren't the only actions these companies wanted us as consumers to do.

</comment><comment><USER67> It's a utility device, not an entertainment device.

A good toolbox is filled with balanced tools. That there isn't some hyper- addictive time-suck application isn't a bad thing.

However, if it's a case of no one actually using the device, then there might be cause for concern.

</comment><comment><USER68> The most frequent use cases for us in order of use-fullness:

1\. Spotify

2\. TV control (with Harmony) - great for the kids so they don't break the remotes

3\. Home monitoring when we are away (drop in on the echo spot).

But for me home security seems to be an unexplored opportunity for Amazon (and Google). Those microphones are very sensitive - and if paired with motion sense on other devices (a Nest or something) start to give you powerful intrusion detection tools and alerting. How hard would it be for them to recognise the sound of breaking glass or the presence of someone in the room at a time they shouldn't be there?

Obviously solving the pet issue is a challenge, but I think it's an interesting use case to explore.

</comment><comment><USER69> Voice is mostly inconvenient and slow unless you have certain disabilities, at times when your hands are otherwise occupied (driving, doing the dishes, maybe when out-and-about via Siri or Google Assistant) and for the basic in-home stuff that people have already discovered (music, home automation, news, weather, timers, random fact from wikipedia).

At this stage I'd be very surprised if there was some new amazing use case. There are always going to be niche uses that some people really like. I create notes in Drafts on iOS via Siri all the time, for instance.

</comment><comment><USER70> > "The advent of the smartphone triggered an app gold rush. So far that hasn't > happened with Alexa."

While gold rush is an accurate analogy, I'm not so sure that's a positive. I remember a couple+ years ago the NYT doing an article / series on (native) app developers and how - contrary to the hype - there were significantly more "losers" than winners.

So has Alexa made it worse? Now there are no winners at all? (Editorial: Well, sans Amazon and its shareholder.)

</comment><comment><USER71> We use it to "set a timer for 10 minutes" when cooking something and "what's the weather for tomorrow" to know whether to bring a coat or not.

<comment><USER72> Either of which could be done just as quickly by setting a timer on your oven/microwave or pulling out your phone.

<comment><USER73> Using Alexa for tasks like this is a qualitatively different experience. Hands-free/voice control can be very useful in that your hands can be busy, and you don't need to find or walk to and manipulate a device or remote.

<comment><USER72> If you're cooking, the timer on your oven should literally be right in front of your face.

Every use case I hear parroted to justify the installation of audio surveillance devices in our homes sounds like a solution desperately in search of a problem. What do you plan to do with the milliseconds of time you may have saved?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> I disagree...the killer app is a smart speaker (i.e. Amazon Music + voice control). That in an of itself is pretty useful, especially when you can get a reasonably good one for under a hundred bucks now.

Outside of that, Alexa isn't the platform the industry thinks it is but rather the equivalent of the touch screen on a smart phone. It's another form of input.

There needs to be much better and more seamless integration with 3rd party apps for it to really be useful.

<comment><USER75> You are right, I would say (Music + Voice Control) as you can configure other services (Spotify for instance), there are a lot of negative comments here, I wonder if it is not due to the population of Commenters on Hackernews that would tend to be younger.

If you have a child it is nearly a nanny that helps your child doing his/her homework, plus you can connect several Alexa (from friends) and interact with them, if you have also several Alexa you can communicate in different rooms (speaks/broadcast)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> It may not be a runaway hit, but if you have kids and an Echo device, you should ask Alexa to "Open the Magic Door". It's essentially a text adventure with fun sound effects and good storytelling.

I can imagine a future where Magic Door or something like it becomes a big hit. BTW, there's a web site for the game: [https://www.themagicdoor.org/](https://www.themagicdoor.org/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Alexa is useful to visually impaired and people and seniors:

      - landline dial by name
      - radio station by name
      - TV channel by name
      - play/resume audiobook by name
      - microwave for duration
      - device power on/off
      - time, weather, etc

It takes some setup to get all devices integrated, but once it all works, it's borderline magic to a non-technical user.

</comment><comment><USER77> I think we still don't have a good model for how voice UI needs to work. The equivalent of GUI for mouse-and-keyboard machines or tap-and-swipe interfaces for mobile.

If we did have a UI model, I imagine we'd be controlling car stereos and driver-mode mobile phones with voice already.

I wonder if any of these 80k apps have the "magic sauce" but just haven't applied it to the right problem.

<comment><USER78> Controlling a mobile phone while driving while using your voice is definitely a thing.

And I suspect if you have your phone hooked up to your car stereo, or integrated using Google or Apple's in-car docks, then using your voice to play music is also possible.

I think your point about not having a good model is correct, though, for anything other than basic uses (phoning, messaging, playing music, navigation, weather, etc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> I think the proper solution is to go old-school.

That is, provide a traditional desktop PC experience that is augmented and improved by Alexa. It should always be more productive to ask an AI than to Google, if this is to have a chance of success.

The problem was jumping immediately to a new modality instead of bridging toward it from the present.

Android assistant has the right idea.

</comment><comment><USER80> I bought an echo on an Amazon sale to explore making "skills" for it.

But (at least then) there was no real way to monetize anything using it. Making an interesting skill that people use will just cost you money.

BigCos or VCCos can use skills for generating good will I guess. But independent developers, not so much.

</comment><comment><USER81> Linking my Apple Music to Alexa was huge for me. It's nice to be able to play my playlists or pick an album.

<comment><USER82> Shame that we can't do the same in Canada

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> While I feel Alexa has a lot of potential from the couple POC apps I've developed, the device class itself simply isn't where I need it to be to fully capitalize on it yet.

</comment><comment><USER84> As a techie, I have barely used it for weather , NPR, WSJ thats about it. May timer sometimes. But thats about it. I guess, dialogue as an interface is a little ahead of its time.

</comment><comment><USER85> If you have an Alexa you really need to try playing Jeopardy on it. The Jeopardy Alexa skill and Akinator skill are fairly quick casual games that are very worthwhile.

</comment><comment><USER86> I don't know anyone that has one of these assistants in their home. If you have one, do you like it and why? What are the main benefits to having one?

</comment><comment><USER87> Alexa was pretty mediocre. I use my Google Home to play Netflix on my tv including rewind, play music, turn off my tv, and pre heat my Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER88> How is the discovery of Alexa apps? Other platforms often had hits because they had some viral component that helped the apps spread.

<comment><USER89> Skills targeted at children are the worst. I am not a child! Why should I have to jump through hoops because other people have children?

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> _Amazon's Alexa Has 80k Apps..._

Perhaps, but by eyeball, no less than 95% of those are stupid useless trivia games.

</comment><comment><USER91> "Computer Play ____" from Spotify is great. Everything else feels like tedious novelty.

</comment><comment><USER92> Today we use several echos only as a time/voice activated watch/spotify. They well be thrown own if we move and replaced with non-cloud wlan speakers.

</comment><comment><USER93> The runaway hit is probably Amazon buying. Miss that so much on my Google Home.</comment>


Automatic bra can only be opened by true love and an iphone - <AUTHOR> http://www.cultofmac.com/264093/automatic-bra-can-only-be-opened-by-true-love-and-an-iphone/

<comment><USER2> Crazy! ;)</comment>


Google Video chat on Android - <AUTHOR> http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-chat-on-your-android-phone.html

<comment><USER2> This is great since for some reason Skype doesn't do video on Android, and stuff like Qik doesn't have the uptake yet.</comment>