Wal-Mart To Enter Voice-Shopping Market Via Google Platform (reuters.com)

Wal-Mart Stores is teaming up with Google to enter the nascent voice-shopping market, currently dominated by Amazon.com, adding another front to Wal-Mart's battle with the online megastore. From a report: Google, which makes the Android software used to run most of the world's smartphones, will offer hundreds of thousands of Walmart items on its voice-controlled Google Assistant platform from late September, Walmart's head of e-commerce, Marc Lore, wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. Lore, who joined the world's largest retailer after it bought his e-commerce company Jet.com, said Wal-Mart would offer a wider selection than any retailer on the platform. Amazon, whose voice-controlled aide Alexa allows users to shop from the retailer, has the lion's share of the U.S. voice-controlled device industry, with its Echo devices accounting for 72.2 percent of the market in 2016, far ahead of the Google Home gadget's 22 percent, according to research firm eMarketer.

Comments

Who actually shops this way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question, does anyone do this? When you ask Alexa to purchase an item, does it just place it in your cart or does it actually complete the transaction like one-click ordering? I'd be afraid of what would show up on my doorstep without being able to see what I'm ordering. I can't imagine myself doing this.

Re:Who actually shops this way?

[__aaclcg7560]

This is probably the equivalent to Amazon's DASH buttons for specific items. Click the button and the item is automatically ordered. What some people found out that pressing button doesn't automatically order the least expensive version of that item. What was $10 last week could easily be $60 this week. I don't expect the verbal version to work any better.

Re:Who actually shops this way?

[Oswald McWeany]

What was $10 last week could easily be $60 this week. I don't expect the verbal version to work any better.

Well, it COULD give better information on price.
It COULD give reviews. It COULD give any information that an online purchase would do. The problem is, to do any of that it would be slower and more inconvenient than going online.

If you're going to do any sort of shopping around- voice shopping seems a much less convenient way of shopping.

Re:Who actually shops this way?

[Anonymous Coward]

I say (or more shout from the bathroom as I put the last roll of toilet paper into service) "alexa order more toilet paper" it reads off the brand I've recently purchased, gives me a price, and asks for confirmation, I say "yes" it asks for a pin number I have setup, I say a few numbers and 2 days later a fresh pack of toilet paper is on my front door.
I do similar for the few food items that are cheaper through amazon (usually things that are hard to find in grocery stores locally).

I'm not sure I've ever used it for ordering something for the first time, usually repeat orders, I just got led bulbs to replace some burnt out ones on my car, I would not order those through alexa, to many variables, lumens, color temperature, etc...
But for staples like toilet paper, or cashews, or peanut butter where you get the same thing every time, just shouting it out when you see it's empty and confirming the purchase is pretty straight forward, and setting up a pin makes it ... more secure....

Who is getting these devices?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I still haven't tied a credit card to any of my mobile phones or accounts (mainly because there hasn't been a mobile app released yet that's worth paying for), but I get that there's a market out there, especially among the less tech-savvy out there.

But this class of gizmos really confuses me: which consumers are really tying their credit cards to a microphone that can start buying random items based on the words that fall out of people's mouths (or the TV/radio shows they listen to loudly)? And what confuses me more is that they aren't free - people actually part with their money to buy them - why?

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[Baron_Yam]

>I still haven't tied a credit card to any of my mobile phones or accounts

Until it's a LOT safer to do so, I never will. One wrong click and you've agreed to pay for something. But without a credit card on record, I can never ever make that mistake nor be subject to all sorts of potential risk from the vendor (or my phone or tablet) getting hacked.

And that's without even considering how much easier it makes it for companies like Facebook and Google to collect data on you. Convenience in return for allowing corporations (and through them the government) to spy on my every action? Just on general principles... NO.

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[JohnFen]

This sort of thing is where prepaid credit cards really shine. Use them, and only load them with the amount of money needed for the purchase. Worst case, your losses would be limited to just that amount.

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Mod parent up. (You're right - prepaid cards are the only way I play with cryptocurrencies; like hell am I going to allow an "exchange" to have my real/personal bank account numbers.)

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[luis_a_espinal]

I still haven't tied a credit card to any of my mobile phones or accounts (mainly because there hasn't been a mobile app released yet that's worth paying for), but I get that there's a market out there, especially among the less tech-savvy out there. But this class of gizmos really confuses me: which consumers are really tying their credit cards to a microphone that can start buying random items based on the words that fall out of people's mouths (or the TV/radio shows they listen to loudly)? And what confuses me more is that they aren't free - people actually part with their money to buy them - why?

You don't tie these devices to a credit card. You tie them to a service you already have a subscription for. So rather than going to a browser to play Rhapsody songs or order a frequent item off Amazon Prime (or say, buying diapers with Amazon Dash), or to order pizza off Dominoes as one would do it via Dominoe's web site) you simply tell it.

There are obvious security issues to be concerned with, but there is nothing as flagrant as storing a credit card in the open. Besides, devices such as Alexa do a lot more than just shopping.

We should be cautious without falling into severe pessimism.

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[luis_a_espinal]

This sort of thing is where prepaid credit cards really shine. Use them, and only load them with the amount of money needed for the purchase. Worst case, your losses would be limited to just that amount.

Bingo. That's what prepaid cards are for.

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[swillden]

This sort of thing is where prepaid credit cards really shine. Use them, and only load them with the amount of money needed for the purchase. Worst case, your losses would be limited to just that amount.

Even better, use a real credit card and your losses are limited to $0. Okay, technically, $50 is what the law says, but the credit card issuance industry is extremely competitive and I haven't heard of any issuer that holds their customers liable for the legally-allowed $50 in decades.

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[JohnFen]

This is true, but then you also have to deal with the problem of replacing your credit card once it has been abused. With prepaid, that's not really an issue.

Re:Who is getting these devices?

[swillden]

Valid point.

Alexa order 4 shotguns 10 Gross of shells a 12 pac

[Joe_Dragon]

Alexa order 4 shotguns 10 Gross of shells a 12 pack of sam adams.
What will happen with that?

Re:Alexa order 4 shotguns 10 Gross of shells a 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Nugent is that you?

Re:Alexa order 4 shotguns 10 Gross of shells a 12

[Anonymous Coward]

Oblig: https://xkcd.com/1807/

let's get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

So I have to pay Google, probably the worst company in terms of user privacy, money for an always-on microphone so that I can pay Google, probably also the worst company in terms of customer service, more money to buy stuff from Wal*Mart, probably the worst company in most other metrics? And Google then sells my shopping habits to their advertisers.

Yeah, no. If I ever did see the appeal in doing online shopping using a voice assistant, I'd stick with the established company that has enormously better service than Google that has all the incentives in the world to keep my shopping habits private. You know, the one that isn't Wal*Mart.

Re:let's get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Christ are you some kind of axe murderer or child molester or something? Dude, nobody gives the slightest shit that you have a taste for sushi flavored Pringles.

Re: let's get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the sushi flavored Pringles company, and most other snack companies, and most sushi companies, and a bunch of other companies that want to peddle their random bullshit to him.

Google isn't the worst with user privacy though, that trophy probably goes to Facebook.

Re: let's get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

As of Google Assistant's release, Google won't even let you use voice commands on your phone, even just to play music, unless you let Google also track and store your location every time you go take a dump. Android phones are practically worthless now if you want any semblance of privacy. Fuck them.

Re:let's get this straight

[avandesande]

Wait till they start selling your information to health insurance companies

Re:let's get this straight

[JohnFen]

In fairness to Google, they're not really the worst company in terms of user privacy. I can think of others that score lower. AT&T, for instance.

Re:let's get this straight

[JohnFen]

Dude, nobody gives the slightest shit that you have a taste for sushi flavored Pringles.

There are obviously people who want to know that sort of thing quite badly. Why else is so much time, effort, and money spent to gather this sort of data?

Re:let's get this straight

[swillden]

Google, probably the worst company in terms of user privacy

Cite?

Seriously, can you cite some examples of Google leaking private information, or someone being damaged by information stolen from Google?

The only one I know of was that Google carelessly opted Buzz users in to sharing the names of their email contacts, in 2010.

Re:let's get this straight

[ChatHuant]

Seriously, can you cite some examples of Google leaking private information, or someone being damaged by information stolen from Google?

Easy - here's one that got settled only yesterday. And here's EPIC's take on it (PDF), where they criticize Google for pushing for a settlement that doesn't block them from continuing their practices, as long as they dump a few extra lines in the privacy policy - which Google knows full well nobody reads.

I understand from another post that you work for Google, so I can see why you're motivated to spin things to make the company look better. However, your post is quite dishonest. The GP criticizes Google as an invader of everybody's privacy. Your reply tries to re-frame the question, by making it whether Google unintentionally gives the data they gather to others. This is not correct. Privacy is not about Google not leaking data to others (and I note you say nothing about selling the data intentionally). Privacy is Google not collecting and not storing all this data, especially from people who haven't even signed up with them. But Google is collecting it all, from Google Analytics, from Google Fonts, from your e-mail, from your phone location, from your credit card purchases and so on. Their whole business model is based on spying on you. And they're the ones who started this trend of tracking and monetizing internet users that is making the Internet worse and worse everyday. That's why Google is the worst company in what regards privacy.

Re:let's get this straight

[swillden]

Seriously, can you cite some examples of Google leaking private information, or someone being damaged by information stolen from Google?

Easy - here's one that got settled only yesterday. And here's EPIC's take on it (PDF)

Neither of those links tells me what it's actually about. I did some searching and it appears that the complaint is that web browsers send a the Referer header to sites when users click links. So, when a user searches for terms on Google and clicks a result link, the operator of the linked site gets the Referer containing the search terms.

I understand from another post that you work for Google, so I can see why you're motivated to spin things to make the company look better.

I do work for Google, but I have no interest in spinning anything.

However, your post is quite dishonest. The GP criticizes Google as an invader of everybody's privacy. Your reply tries to re-frame the question, by making it whether Google unintentionally gives the data they gather to others.

Intentionally or unintentionally, either way. I did reframe the question, not in terms of intentionality, but in terms of harm. So let me be clearer: Can you give me any examples of users being harmed? I can give you extensive examples of users being helped.

Re:let's get this straight

[ChatHuant]

I did reframe the question, not in terms of intentionality, but in terms of harm. So let me be clearer: Can you give me any examples of users being harmed? I can give you extensive examples of users being helped.

See, you're doing it again - spinning and trying to deflect the issue. This is bad form, even if your paycheck comes from Google.

Invading somebody's privacy is bad in itself, period. Whether some demonstrable harm results is irrelevant. Would you be comfortable if your nosy neighbor drilled holes in your walls to spy on you, installed radio bugs on your car to find out where you're going at all times, followed you to the grocery store to ask the sales guy what you bought and dug through your garbage to read your discarded mail? Even if he didn't do anything with the knowledge? Google does all this and worse - yet you're trying to say those abuses are OK for Google, because "no users were harmed".

This is disingenuous in a number of ways. To begin with, your blanket assertion that no users were harmed is contradicted by the links I posted, which show Google settling class actions brought by users who felt they were harmed. Next, even if no users have been harmed yet, how can you guarantee they won't harmed in the future? Google may fail to protect the data, or may change their policies. Maybe Google will get more active politically, as they seem to be doing recently. We found out only the other day that Google is already building databases and lists of thought criminals. It's not clear to me how those blacklists can be used only for good. The only way to guarantee no users are harmed is not to store any of this data. But of course, that's the core of Google's business model.

What I really hate is the industrial scale of Google's tracking and the insidiousness of some of Google's actions (for example, providing "free" tools for web sites to use, but sneaking extra user tracking in them). I'm avoiding using Google's properties directly, don't have a Google account, never go to Google search, maps or others; I'm still not safe from Google spying. Any random web site may report you to Google as a side effect of using whatever tool Google so selflessly makes available to web sites. This slashdot page, for example, calls into Google analytics and gstatic.com. I block those domains from my home computers, but it means if I ever access Slashdot from another site, I get logged by Google. Even outside of the web your shopping is not private, since Google will suck in your credit card transactions data anyway and store it forever.

Re:let's get this straight

[swillden]

See, you're doing it again - spinning and trying to deflect the issue.

No, I'm trying to get at the core issue, trying to get you to think about what actually matters, and why.

Invading somebody's privacy is bad in itself, period.

And now you're using loaded language to try to shape the discussion. There's no "invasion" here. You interact voluntarily with Google's services, and in exchange you get targeted ads.

To begin with, your blanket assertion that no users were harmed is contradicted by the links I posted, which show Google settling class actions brought by users who felt they were harmed.

You didn't read the links, and didn't read my response to them. That lawsuit is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with Google, it's just how the web works. Google isn't even the one getting the allegedly "private" information in the referer header. If you're not familiar with how HTTP headers in general and the referer header in particular work, here's some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

even if no users have been harmed yet, how can you guarantee they won't harmed in the future?

Ah, this is the first valid argument you've made. I agree that concentration of data about people poses significant potential risk. That's something we can discuss in more detail if you'd like.

the insidiousness of some of Google's actions (for example, providing "free" tools for web sites to use, but sneaking extra user tracking in them)

Again with the loaded language. There's no "sneaking" or "insidiousness" here. It's a straight-up, open transaction between web site operators and Google. The web site operators know what they're paying for what they're getting.

Even outside of the web your shopping is not private, since Google will suck in your credit card transactions data anyway and store it forever.

Google has no access to credit card transaction records, unless retailers provide them. You should read the link you posted to see the effort that Google invested to maintain privacy, to avoid getting any information about the real-world identity of the user from the transactions, and to avoid giving any information to the retailers. Also, note that the matching is done on credit card number. I assume that you don't have a credit card number in your Google account (or even have a Google account), so none of this applies to you.

Google, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Voice prints are better than fingerprints, and their new "AI" will pick your voice out out the crowd.

Whatever, just know that the mic is always hot. Don't let it catch you flirting with that pretty girl in aisle 12 while your wife is picking out avocados at the other end of the store.

Executive function

[avandesande]

That area in the brain where we have to plan ahead is going to shrivel away to nothing.

Lesser evils

[JohnFen]

I feel dirty when I buy stuff from Amazon, but buying from Wal-Mart? Even I can't sink that low.

Hullo? Wal-Mart?

[boudie2]

I need T.P. for my bunghole.

Spam-mart

[Vintermann]

Oh, that is going to be "fun". Wal-Mart is one of the few "serious" businesses which sends me spam. Pure, unfalsified spam, not some newsletter they pretend you signed up for by not checking a box somewhere. At first I thought it must be someone doing it to sully their name, or maybe it redirected to a phishing site or something... nope. It's actually them.

Never mind that I live in the wrong freaking hemisphere for Wal-Mart, they're SURE I would like some offers anyway!