Slashdot Asks: Which Smart Speaker Do You Prefer?

Every tech company wants to produce a smart speaker these days. Earlier this month, Apple finally launched the HomePod, a smart speaker that uses Siri to answer basic questions and play music via Apple Music. In December, Google released their premium Google Home Max speaker that uses the Google Assistant and Google's wealth of knowledge to play music, answer questions, set reminders, and so on. It may be the most advanced smart speaker on the market as it has the hardware capable of playing high fidelity audio, and a digital assistant that can perform over one million actions. There is, however, no denying the appeal of the Amazon Echo, which is powered by the Alexa digital assistant. Since it first made its debut in late 2014, it has had more time to develop its skill set. Amazon says Alexa controls "tens of millions of devices," including Windows 10 PCs.

A new report from The Guardian, citing the industry site MusicAlly, says that Spotify is working on a line of "category defining" hardware products "akin to Pebble Watch, Amazon Echo, and Snap Spectacles." The streaming music company has posted an ad for a senior product manager to "define the product requirements for internet connected hardware [and] the software that powers it." With Spotify looking to launch a smart speaker in the not-too-distant-future, the decision to purchase a smart speaker has become all the more difficult. Do you own a smart speaker? If so, which device do you own and why? Do you see a clear winner, or can they all satisfy your basic needs?

Comments

I like my dumb speakers

[rrohbeck]

Don't need speakers that eavesdrop on me. If I want that I'll use a microphone.

Re:I like my dumb speakers

[Anubis IV]

I too prefer dumb speakers, but for different reasons than you:
1) For the sound quality, they're almost assuredly cheaper.
2) In the tech industry's timescale, they essentially never become obsolete.

Most of the smart speakers either sound like crap or else sound far worse than comparably priced dumb speakers. Even if you buy into the HomePod hype, unless you're hopelessly technologically illiterate or you have no way to fit a stereo set in your home, why pay $350 for a device that simulates stereo when you can have actual stereo from better speakers for the same price? Toss in a wireless receiver with a wired output and you'll have better wireless compatibility than what the HomePod has, without any of the lock-in to AirPlay or Apple's ecosystem.

On the other side, my parents have had the same speakers since before I was born (34 years ago). The speakers still work just fine. The dumb speakers I have today will—barring an accident—still be working just fine when the kid I have on the way is as old as I am today. Even if the world were to switch entirely to wireless or those wireless protocols were to change, I could simply swap out the aforementioned wireless receiver with a different one. Meanwhile, if I had bought into the HomePod or Alexa or whatever, I'd have to scrap the entire speaker to get on the new protocol.

No thanks.

If nothing else, the ones that are staking their name on sound quality at least need to give me a line in jack. Until then, so far as I'm concerned, they're smart accessories, not smart speakers.

None

[Jamlad]

Why the hell would I want something so Orwellian in my home? Cellphones are bad enough.

I'm a fan of NdGT

[El Cubano]

Personally, I am a fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Re:I'm a fan of NdGT

[El Cubano]

Ok, I'm going to need someone to explain this to me. (posting anonymously cuz I hate admitting I'm an idiot)

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]: speaker n 1: someone who expresses in language; someone who talks (especially someone who delivers a public speech or someone especially garrulous); "the speaker at commencement"; "an utterer of useful maxims" [syn: {speaker}, {talker}, {utterer}, {verbalizer}, {verbaliser}]

"Smart speaker" -> someone who speaks publicly and is also intelligent. Neil deGrass Tyson is wellknown for both his intelligence and for his public speaking.

I know that the headline was asking about the new gadgets for the home, but I was feeling snarky and decided to take advantage of the word sense ambiguity to be a little bit funny.

Re:Alexa, obviously.

[cayenne8]

I don't want to voluntarily "bug" my house, sending audio and possibly even video to strangers out in the cloud with these always on products.

And..if I want to listen to music at home, I'll play it on my more than capable stereo/AV set up through real speakers, amps etc...and get the full pleasure out of the situation.

Ok, sure, I might have to get up...and go over to configure the playlist, but hell, I have to get up from time to time to get a beer anyway, so, what's the problem?

Nope.

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not as stupid as I look. I refuse to let Google, Amazon, Apple, or anyone put a smart speaker into my home without a FISA warrant. Christ, are people really dumb enough to pay any of these dick companies to spy on them?

Re:Nope.

[PopeRatzo]

Did you just admit to being a foreign spy?

Yes. I am a double-naught spy, and an agent in the service of my homeland, San Marino. You don't realize it, but we meddled in your last election by placing subversive classified ads in the back of your Local Shopper.

The Dumb One

[CanHasDIY]

Seriously, I'd prefer all my output devices be as stupid as digitally possible.

A corporation-controlled microphone in my home

[mi]

With Spotify looking to launch a smart speaker in the not-too-distant-future, the decision to purchase a smart speaker has become all the more difficult.

The decision is as easy as it always was: Don't!

Seriously, after talking about the dangers of eavesdropping and the big brother, having the computer's camera covered, who would possibly pay money to have a permanently-connected microphone installed in their dwelling?

You may think, you can turn it off, but you can not be certain. If the criminals and intelligence agencies manage to break into your computer, why would they not break into your "smart speaker"? Police too may find it much easier to gain the cooperation of the device's manufacturer to listen on you, than to get a warrant and then wire your house without you noticing.

Just say no and control your music the old-fashioned way — as we all did only a few years ago.

I don't mind a smart speaker ...

[bigjocker]

... it's the smart microphone that is always listening the one I don't like.

It's just a matter of time until somebody gains unauthorized access to the microphone on one of those devices and starts recording every sound in your house. No way they are getting my secret lasagna sauce recipe.

Troll?

[EvilSS]

Can we mod articles troll? Asking THIS audience THAT question? Come on!

Mycroft on Raspberry Pi

[Speare]

There's an OSS variant (probably several) which aren't given due attention in the article.

The Mycroft project currently listens locally for the watch word, and aggregates ALL of the subsequent queries as audio through a single source to the online engines like Google, Wolfram or others. This anonymizes a lot of what the engines could learn about individual users.

Their next stage is to expand on the local processing even more, so they will only be sharing plain text to the online engine third parties. This version is due in the first half of this year.

For me, the benefit is simple local Linux-based Python-based skill development. When my kid was young I would make a family computer into a sort of daily-schedule-keeper, announcing the daily tasks like bathtime or bedtime. I would ssh into the machine when my kid started having "conversations" with the computer. So now I can rebuild a little bit of that in my own personalized smart speaker.

Re:Alexa, obviously.

[Oligonicella]

"Ms Slaker, I hear you're having sex. Your partner's browsing history indicates he likes his women bound and gagged while he spanks them with a riding crop."

Mycroft

[q4Fry]

I am considering backing the Mycroft 2. I am not about to pipe all my audio to Google, Apple, Amazon, et al., but this seems like a fun toy. I passed on the v1 because it used Google's STT, but this one apparently has 8 different STT options, one of which is Mozilla-developed and can run on local hardware.

According to Fast Company, their business model is framed around selling voice services to major companies who are similarly wary about sending client data to Big Tech firms. (The for-example is Land Rover-Jaguar.) This seems reasonable, and it provides incentive for Mycroft (which is open source; in part? in full? I can't quite tell) to continue to play honest or risk the cash from the privacy-conscious corporate partners that they hoped to attract.

I'm not totally sold, yet. I'd be interested in /. views one way or the other, or anecdotes from anyone who has a v1.

Re:Alexa, obviously.

[KiloByte]

Your purchase history is yours to share. Every conversation you have, too -- that's your choice. But please, do warn me when/if I visit your house, so I know that no talk is private there.

Re:Alexa, obviously.

[slaker]

Because I'm monitoring traffic on the relevant VLAN. It's pretty easy to tell what's going where. Unless you think that magic spying is happening on my network that I can't see for some reason.

Re:Alexa, obviously.

[slaker]

Pfft. This is Slashdot. Who in the hell has sex with a partner?

Re:Alexa, obviously.

[RazorSharp]

What are they going to find? That I talk to my cats?

This is the type of attitude that undermines privacy for those who actually need/want it.