Nearly Half of American Households Will Own a Smart Speaker by 2019, Study Says (fortune.com)

Almost half of American households will have a smart speaker by next year, according to a new study from Adobe. From a report: The study, released Monday, finds that 32% of the country already owns a smart speaker and another 16% plan on getting one this holiday season. And just as importantly, people are using those speakers. "Technology trends come and go, but we think voice is here to stay," said Colin Morris, director of product management for Adobe Analytics, in a statement. "Consumers continue to embrace voice as a means to engage their devices and the Internet. It's a trend that has fundamentally changed the face of computing." A notable indicator of the growing popularity of the speakers is how comfortable people are talking to the device in front of others. And that number is on the rise: 72% of smart speaker owners say they use voice assistants in front of others. (Only 29% of people without a smart speaker are comfortable with doing so.) Further reading: Google Home Outships Amazon Echo for Second Quarter in Row.

Comments

Seriously?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Seriously? That many people want an ever-listening microphone in their home?That was fast.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

i for one do not want this

Re:Seriously?

[ShanghaiBill]

If you have a smart phone, and you think Alexa is a bigger threat to your privacy, then you are delusional.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't be surprised that half the country are morons

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. Half of all people have below-average IQ.

Re: Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been fined $100 for violating the verbal code P 45.7

Re:Seriously?

[sycodon]

Yep.

Count me out unless they come up with some ironclad Do Not Track agreements, a two step process for activating, and a completely separate and offline mode for controlling IOC devices in the home.

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

No shit.

I for one don't want it either. I don't like talking to those voice assisted telephone prompts either.

I don't want to fucking talk to anything in order to use it. Hell, even on my phone, I'd rather send an email or look at a website for the info I need, rather than place a phone call.

And I DEFINITELY don't want electronics talking to ME. Just fuck that every which way!

Down with voice!! Make your voice heard!! Wait - what? Oh yeah. Down with voice!!

Thank you!

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

You have confused average with median.

I guess we know where you fall in the distribution.

Re:Seriously?

[Ksevio]

Yep, it's pretty useful. I can be in the kitchen cooking and just yell up at my echo to play music or change the lights. It only sends the audio back if it hears the trigger word.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart phone, tablet? Unless those are banned, along anything else you can speak into in your house, then you already have an ever listening speaker. Que the husband not listening to the wife jokes now.

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

Yep, it's pretty useful. I can be in the kitchen cooking and just yell up at my echo to play music or change the lights. It only sends the audio back if it hears the trigger word.

Are you the guy who decided IR technology would be great in the bathroom?

"Look! Someone can just wave their hand in front of the dispenser and it will dispense! We can deploy these high tech devices in every bathroom on the planet, even though simple mechanical devices will work just fine and are actually preferred by people. This will be the greatest use of technology EVER!!!"

Re:Seriously?

[Pulzar]

If you have a smart phone, and you think Alexa is a bigger threat to your privacy, then you are delusional.

Exactly! I don't get how this supposedly "always listening and spying on me" device is going to get more out of me than the phone that knows almost everything I do and write, all day every day. I don't tell Alexa before I go to a store where I'm going and what I'm going to get, but the phone knows exactly where I went, how long I spent there, and what products I researched before I did it.

All the phones these days are listening all the time, as well. And they follow you around.

I really don't see what the problem with a smart speaker is. And it looks like most people agree.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would use voice recognition software that ran locally. It could retrieve shit off of the internet, but only through my direct connection and it must never send or receive any data from anywhere unless explicitly commanded to do so by a user.

All of this crap about "needing" to be connected to Google or Amazon or Microsoft servers for processing purposes is bullshit. A low end smartphone SoC is more than powerful enough to handle all of the processing locally. I was doing accurate voice recognition and voice control of my computer back in the 90s on Pentium 1 CPUs with 16MB of RAM.

Re:Seriously?

[cayenne8]

I too agree on the privacy issues ya'll have raised here, but I in general, just fscking HATE talking to a machine/computer in general.

I cannot STAND places that have switched to phone support that tries to get you to speak to answer questions rather than hitting a number to make choices on how they want to direct your call.

This is especially a PITA when you're sitting in cubeville making a call....whether a direct work support call, or maybe you're on break, and calling local utilities for instance.

I don't want co-workers around me to hear my personal business, etc.

I have read, that some of these robo-support systems listen for hostility and curse words....I use this possibility to the fullest when calling from home and continually yell "Get me a FUCKING live operator"....after about 2-3 of those, I get to a person.

I'm very calm and gracious when talking to people on the phone, but I cannot stand having to talk to a fucking computer...I'd almost rather talk to a foreigner with too thick of an accent to understand than a flawless English speaking computer, I hate it that much....

Re:Seriously?

[Ksevio]

Yeah, those are great too. I'm sure your argument is you can just put your dirty hands on a lever to get the soap out and you can pull out the paper towel no problem!

But it's a lot more convenient to get soap without touching anything and there's less to clean. Paper towels are easy to tear and if you can't get them out by pulling, it means you need to put your wet hands on a some lever or wheel to get them out - that's more to clean or more germs.

Technology isn't that scary, you don't have to always fear it

Re: Seriously?

[dunkelfalke]

So you personally are The People, then?

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a smart phone, and you think Alexa is a bigger threat to your privacy, then you are delusional.

Exactly! I don't get how this supposedly "always listening and spying on me" device is going to get more out of me than the phone that knows almost everything I do and write, all day every day. I don't tell Alexa before I go to a store where I'm going and what I'm going to get, but the phone knows exactly where I went, how long I spent there, and what products I researched before I did it.

All the phones these days are listening all the time, as well. And they follow you around.

I really don't see what the problem with a smart speaker is. And it looks like most people agree.

Sure, my phone can listen to what I say and see what I write, but a smart speakers only function is to "spy" on me and send the data to some servers for processing. Without an internet connection the smart speaker stops being smart and it is not really a good speaker either.

In theory, my phone could do the same, it has the necessary hardware and the potential to do better spying on me since it follows me around. But it doesn't. How do I know? I don't have a data plan that allows for those amount of data.

Re:Seriously?

[cayenne8]

Exactly! I don't get how this supposedly "always listening and spying on me" device is going to get more out of me than the phone that knows almost everything I do and write, all day every day. I don't tell Alexa before I go to a store where I'm going and what I'm going to get, but the phone knows exactly where I went, how long I spent there, and what products I researched before I did it.

All the phones these days are listening all the time, as well. And they follow you around.

Not everyone feels the need to carry a phone around with them 24/7 everywhere they go....

Re:Seriously?

[aardvarkjoe]

You have confused average with median.

While pedants love to counter with this, you're wrong. In colloquial English, the word "average" means "typical", not necessarily the arithmetic mean. A few sources (from the first three dictionaries that popped up on google):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/average?s=t
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/average

Furthermore, the statement assumes that it makes sense to measure intelligence on a single scale; and by far the most common scale to do that is using IQ. IQ tests are designed to result in a normal distribution, which means that both the median and the mean are the same, and so we expect right about 50% of people to have an IQ less than the mean.

Although the other half of me thinks that if you go out and talk to some people on the street, you'll probably conclude that the majority of people are far dumber than average.

Re:Seriously?

[swillden]

Seriously? That many people want an ever-listening microphone in their home?That was fast.

That many people understand that it's not an ever-listening microphone, at least not one that listens for anything other than the activation keyword.

You may consider them naive for believing the tech companies are telling the truth about what it does and does not listen for. If so, I consider you naive for believing that the tech companies could get away with such a lie. It's pretty easy to monitor network traffic, and not too much harder to crack one open and check out what it's doing from the inside. Obviously the percentage of people that could or would do that sort of analysis is very small, but it only takes one to blow the whistle.

Re: Seriously?

[datavirtue]

Yeah. After a test to see how inaudible I could get my voice before Alexa stopped activating and seeing an article on how people talk to their Alexa it was enough to turn me off. You can't write an article like that unleas you are storing and analyzing everything that everyone says. Way too much fucking power. I believe it was lamenting how many people talked to Alexa because they needed a friend. We are going over the deep end people.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite... It sends the audio back when what it hears is close enough to the trigger word.

That's an important difference.

Re:Seriously?

[Pulzar]

In theory, my phone could do the same, it has the necessary hardware and the potential to do better spying on me since it follows me around. But it doesn't. How do I know? I don't have a data plan that allows for those amount of data.

How much data do you think it needs to transfer? Most of what you do is not voice recordings, but raw gps data, emails, etc., which not only compress really well, but have already travelled to you on that bad data plan of yours.

Plus, high-quality VOIP takes less than 40MB per *hour* of two-way conversation. So even if it was doing what Alexa does, you'd still not even notice.

Also, doesn't your phone ever connect to wifi? It can store gigabytes of information locally in the meantime...

Re: Seriously?

[datavirtue]

Big difference. That phone is not really logging everything you do. These chat speakers are. Every fucking syllable is recorded and analyzed for whatever reason.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

their called a smart phone.

and i question if its even possible to turn the feature off.

Re:Seriously?

[Pulzar]

Not everyone feels the need to carry a phone around with them 24/7 everywhere they go....

That's good for you, but you're in the minority.

Even then, nobody carries an Echo around with them. So even you will likely be talking around it much less often than you will use your phone.

Re: Seriously?

[datavirtue]

You are a dumbass.

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

In other words, previous poster confused average with median.

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

The result of all that IR shit in the bathroom is people leaving with dirty and/or wet hands most of the time, since that shit never seems to work satisfactorily.

Personally, I don't even bother TRYING to use a paper towel dispenser that uses IR - and I refuse to stand in front of an air dryer and go deaf either.

Re: Seriously?

[Ksevio]

Why do you think that? Are you just anti-technology or are there actual issues that you need help understanding?

Re: Seriously?

[sycodon]

Exactly!

So more like this:

"Alexa"
"Alexa Voice Activated, Confirm please."
"Confirmed. Order pizza.

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

The difference is that the microphone on my cell phone sucks and no one can hear me anyway. So no threat there.

Now - if they were to take a "smart speaker" microphone and somehow graft it on to a phone, thereby making it possible to use your phone to talk to people and have them understanding you - well, shit, then they'd have something!!

Re:Seriously?

[sacrilicious]

Count me out unless they come up with some ironclad Do Not Track agreements

No "agreement" that can be administratively undone ("oops, we made a mistake!") will ever be good enough. I doubt I'll ever own one of these spy toys, but if I do it will only be because it's running completely on open source.

Re:Seriously?

[demonlapin]

Assume every surface is dirty. Dispense paper towel, turn water on, dispense soap, wash hands, take towel. If inadequately dry, use existing towel to operate dispenser again. Throw towel away after using it to open the door to the bathroom. None of this process is improved with those scanners.

Re:Seriously?

[aardvarkjoe]

No. Previous poster was using colloquial English, which is the language that we speak and understand on Slashdot. The only confusion is yours, since you apparently don't understand that the term "average" is correct in this context.

Re:Seriously?

[Desler]

Actually the only one failing is you. Mean, median and mode are all "averages." Secondly, IQ is mapped to a normal distribution where by definition the median and mean are equivalent. So the AC is perfectly correct.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? That many people want an ever-listening microphone in their home?That was fast.

I get where you come from, but you use a smartphone right? maybe have facebook on it?

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said you have to live your life on your phone either. While you can't do much about your phone tracking your position you do have full control over what you are using your phone for and by extension what data is being sent out to nefarious companies. Stop watching tranny porn and looking up how to make bombs on your phone all day and you'll have less people following you around.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way that people confuse "hot dog" to mean some silly tube of meat-byproduct wedged in the crevice of a small elongated bun that has been sliced nearly in half, instead of a domesticated canine with an elevated temperature. Sure.

Why can't everyone just use the specific definitions of words that I use?!

Here's a clue: the public lexicon dictates the assumed meaning of words. And given that the majority of people in the world, and perhaps even here on slashdot, are not mathematicians or otherwise concerned with less common but more "official" definitions of words, and use "average" in the same way you use "median", that makes YOU sound wrong. That's why YOU have to sit there endlessly stipulating that you meant the other meaning of some word, or that YOU didn't expect it when someone used the common meaning. But hey, you get to make yourself feel superior by being an insufferable pedant, so you have that. Kind of an invented problem/solution though.

Re:Seriously?

[cyberchondriac]

It's not quite the same, you have other options with a phone, like not installing Facebook on it.
But you have a point: my wife has noted that all too frequently she'll mention something in conversation in our living room, while perusing FaceBook on her phone, and within hours an ad or post of some sort will show on FB for that thing she just discussed, whether it's needing a new mattress (which we do), or luggage for vacation (which we did), or a celebrity we mentioned. It's gotten creepy. I'd say a couple of times is just coincidence and can be laughed off, but this has happened with alarming specificity and regularity.

Re:Seriously?

[The Grim Reefer]

Stop watching tranny porn and looking up how to make bombs on your phone all day and you'll have less people following you around.

But how else will I make new friends?

Re:Seriously?

[drinkypoo]

Previous poster was using colloquial English, which is the language that we speak and understand on Slashdot.

What? Speak for yourself, I'm speaking nerd. I think it's reasonable to expect Slashdotters to understand the difference between "average" and "median".

Re: Seriously?

[dunkelfalke]

I only ever talk at home to Alexa anyway, why should I bother?

Re:Seriously?

[Flentil]

You're missing out though. If you just go with it and accept that we're living in the future now, you can wave your hands in front of the magic wall dryer and it actually will do a pretty good job drying your hands. The air-blade ones are especially cool and work great. Try it!

Re: Seriously?

[c6gunner]

All the phones these days are listening all the time, as well. And they follow you around.

I have a lot more control over my phone. Use LineageOS with privacy guard, or the XPosed Framework installed on pretty much any Android based OS. Or just avoid installing apps which abuse your privacy in the first place.

If I was able to purchase one of these smart speakers and install an open source OS on it which doesn't automatically connect to google or Amazon all the time, I would be very interested in playing around with one of them. Until that's possible, there's no way I'll willingly use one.

Re:Seriously?

[Visarga]

> I was doing accurate voice recognition and voice control of my computer back in the 90s on Pentium 1 CPUs with 16MB of RAM.

So, why didn't you launch a smart speaker in the meantime? Was it crap compared to current day?

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

And now the germs and viruses that were on your hands are now in the air that you breathe. Not the improvement we were hoping for.

Re:Seriously?

[bjwest]

I was doing accurate voice recognition and voice control of my computer back in the 90s on Pentium 1 CPUs with 16MB of RAM.

So, why didn't you launch a smart speaker in the meantime? Was it crap compared to current day?

I was changing my own oil and doing light maintenance on my vehicle back in high school. Should I have opened my own garage?

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not quite the same, you have other options with a phone, like not installing Android on it.

FTFY

Re: Seriously?

[ShanghaiBill]

That phone is not really logging everything you do.

How do you know?

These chat speakers are.

There is no evidence of that. It would involve a conspiracy involving hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, knowingly breaking the law, and exposing one of the largest corporations in the world to massive class action lawsuits.

Why are stupid conspiracy theories believed for Alexa, but not for cellphones? The cellphone has a much larger attack surface. Just one bad app is all it takes, and the OS is far more complex than what a speaker has, with many more potential holes.

Re:Seriously?

[ShanghaiBill]

40MB/hour translates to 28GB/month.

Only if you talk continuously.

Re:Seriously?

[ShanghaiBill]

you do have full control over what you are using your phone for and by extension what data is being sent out to nefarious companies.

No you don't. If you monitor your phone's packets, you may be surprised what data is being sent where.

Then try monitoring the packets from Alexa. Unless you say the keyword, you will see ... nothing.

Bottom line:
1. There is no evidence that Alexa is "spying", or doing anything except listing for a particular keyword.
2. There is plenty of evidence that your cellphone is doing stuff behind your back and running 3rd party software.

If you trust your cellphone more than you trust Alexa, you are a deluded fool.

Re:Seriously?

[AHuxley]

Police and security services have an always open mic for more of the population.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was better. It was more accurate and would only obey trained voices. Commands were 100% custom too.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you have an unlocked and rooted phone running a custom ROM. Some of us know a little more than you, son.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

My inner optimist wants to question those statistics.
My inner pessimist thinks that people really are that stupid.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't see why people hate the old "press 1 for x, 2 for y..." type decision tree. It's not that hard to navigate and you can easily map the decision tree to find what you want.

You can (and do) try dozens of different words/phrases on the "guess the magic word" system, never get where you want to go and worse yet still have no idea what options are even available in the damn system that might help. At the minimum I just wish they would tell me what options are available rather than leave me to flail about in the dark.

Give me a "dial x" system any day. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that "dial x for y" is less stressful than trying to communicate with some poor sod in 2 second delay land who speaks English as a second language.

Re:Seriously?

[WaffleMonster]

If you have a smart phone, and you think Alexa is a bigger threat to your privacy, then you are delusional.

The effect is additive. The most egregious offender doesn't win and everyone else walk away empty handed. Everyone wins at your expense.

Imagine an angry flash mob of all remaining Facebook users lobbing bricks at crystal palace. Each brick thrown causes additional damage. It's never the case that the most damaging brick wins and all other damage is magically erased from history.

If you throw a brick at crystal palace because everyone else is doing it your legal liability, karma, chance of going to hell is the same as if nobody else had done it.

Crystal palace never thinks to itself... you know that one dude over there has an awfully big brick and really good aim... I'll just ignore these weaklings throwing bricks because I don't want to be labeled delusional.

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

Nice try.

"Colloquial" would be "I'm an average Joe" or today is "about average". In these instances, no one is expecting the speaker to be making any kind of mathematical statement.

In our case here, the speaker was referring to a population being a precise amount below the average. That's clearly mathematics, not colloquial speech.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

false equivalence, but what ever helps you sleep at night. most phones are not always listening until some physical input gesture (button or screen swipe). If they were actually always listening and reporting then people in north America would be pissed as they pay the highest prices for data in the world (and im pretty damn sure someone would notice, especially on corporate controlled devices!)

On top of that, the end user has some semblance of control as to what actual code is running on their phone. With smart speakers there is no control except what the manufacturer decides is best for the user.

Finally, i can leave my phone in my car, at a friends house, at home (if i am going out), where smart speakers are more than likely to stay in one place for their entire life which is usually where people are at their most vulnerable and have most of their intimate moments.

Alexa is the bigger threat so use your false equivalences and ad hominum logic to help justify your smart speaker purchase but i will pass on putting one in my house.

Re:Seriously?

[registrations_suck]

Right.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Re:Seriously?

[WaffleMonster]

Exactly! I don't get how this supposedly "always listening and spying on me" device is going to get more out of me than the phone that knows almost everything I do and write, all day every day.

What does the most egregious stalking device get? A special prize? What difference (Senator) does it make who does it best?

I don't tell Alexa before I go to a store where I'm going and what I'm going to get

That's right. You tell other people and Alexa records it.

All the phones these days are listening all the time, as well. And they follow you around.

I really don't see what the problem with a smart speaker is. And it looks like most people agree.

Oh so no big deal then. Most people agree if they get one black eye they have no problem getting a second one.

Re:Seriously?

[Darinbob]

Does Alexa have a comprehensive set of options to limit how much information it can use and share? With my phone I can turn off GPS, turn off ads, and so forth. The phone is not always listening, presumably, and I have to turn it on before I can interact with it. Alexa, by design and user interface, is always on.

Re: Seriously?

[Darinbob]

Alexa should be able to respond to other words, like "honey", "sweetie", and "darling".

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may consider them naive for believing the tech companies are telling the truth about what it does and does not listen for. If so, I consider you naive for believing that the tech companies could get away with such a lie.

I don't believe my Android phone was designed to randomly pocket dial 911 but it does so anyway. What's the stats on Android pocket dialing nuisance calls to 911? How many MILLIONS per year?

Turns out there is no rational input filtering from the digitizer allowing absurdly stupid superhuman rates of button presses to register. Couple that with crummy unlock dance and you have low probability events happening thousands of times per day that don't need to due to lack of attention to detail.

It's not that they are secretly recording you for no reason it's that wake word detection is not fit for purpose. To be blunt it sucks ass. It's incapable of effectively mitigating against uncommanded activation. They simply don't care enough to take the issue seriously. Anyone whose around a smart speaker will see it activating for no reason now and again. Anyone wanting to collect data or collect cheap points will shout a command on the radio or TV and it will be picked up and processed.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/...

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/...

https://www.businessinsider.co...

It's pretty easy to monitor network traffic

No way. It's all encrypted. Google speaker has half a gig of RAM. Low bitrate codecs with silence detection can store weeks of conversations easily and batch it out under cover of an actual activation or updates or any such shit.

I'm not asserting this is happening but the claim it's easy to monitor especially when you don't trust the vendor to act underhandedly is totally bogus.

Re: Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assume every surface is dirty. Don't go far out of the way to avoid the 'dirt.' Live in the world, exposed, and let your body be acclimatised to the biome and generate healthy antibodies.

Re:Seriously?

[Ksevio]

Assume every surface is dirty. Rinse hands under faucet, get soap, wash hands, take towel dispensed. If inadequately dry, take new towel. Every step of that process was improved both for me by not needing to worry about touching dirty stuff, and for the cleaning staff who have less dirty stuff to clean.

Re:Seriously?

[Ksevio]

Maybe you're a vampire or something? I use one every day at my office that you just have to wave vaguely under it and it dispenses quickly and easily. It runs off 4 D-Cell batteries, so if it doesn't work on the first wave, I know to spin the knob.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This would be really creepy and worrying if not for this even creepier thing that I already own and have been manipulated over years into accepting as normal via my social media and Candy Crush addictions."

Holy shit...

Re:Seriously?

[Pulzar]

What does the most egregious stalking device get? A special prize? What difference (Senator) does it make who does it best?

I think you missed my point. *I* don't think either device is stalking me. The point is that most people also don't think their phone is stalking them, even though it's an order of magnitude more likely for it to be doing some illegal monitoring of your activities than the wifi-only static microphone in one of your rooms. Yet, this microphone is a feared privacy intrusion device (at least on Slashdot), while the one in your pocket that also listens to "ok, google", "hey, siri", "bixby", or even combinations of those, is ok.

So, the question is -- why is that? It's not a question of let's compare which is worse, but why is it that this particular device incites so much anger around here, while others that do the same do not.

Re:Seriously?

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Speak for yourself. When my feature phone died, i got a smart phone.
Its easy to make secure. Turn off bluetooth, wifi and gps. dont download applications and soley use it as a phone.

no one tracks anything of mine! And as an added benefit I dont have to work from home, on holidays, while i am with my son at the park, etc. because i simply don't carry my phone around to those places and everyone just thinks im a luddite! win win win!

Re:Seriously?

[AmiMoJo]

Back in the day the best voice recognition wasn't that accurate and need a quiet environment to work. Google Voice works in a noisy street when you have a thick Scottish accent.

I'm not saying it's impossible on a phone, just not as easy as you might think.

Re:Seriously?

[Man On Pink Corner]

I really don't see why people hate the old "press 1 for x, 2 for y..." type decision tree. It's not that hard to navigate and you can easily map the decision tree to find what you want.

Because it replaced a human switchboard operator who was trained to route you instantly to the person you wanted to reach.

Re:Seriously?

[houghi]

You should meet my wife.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

the dumber half

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've been handing them out for free so why is that surprising that people have them? Now using them is another matter.
  Besides, it's not like this isn't an advertisement for that spying shit.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

So was I and it's then I discovered that talking to your PC was a freaking pain. I then looked down and saw a mouse and keyboard, I removed Dragon Dictate (that had consumed many hours of training) from my PCs and never looked back. It may be great for accessibility reasons (I had a few authors that needed not only that but foot mice etc to write their novels) but for the rest of us pushing a button will always be more functional that asking an AI for it. (Mind you I still own a non-smart flip phone too).
I hafta retire soon, I should've as soon as they started peddling "Le Cloud" concept....

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I've been voting with my ... well, I've been voting by not carrying one.

Re:Seriously?

[Mnemennth]

Agreed 100%. I don't want to talk to a computer until it can carry a conversation, & I damned sure don't want our just-now-turned-evil overlords listening in. :facepalm:

Re: Seriously?

[dunkelfalke]

Right after they create a sandwich making skill

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saiy looks pretty good. Especially this:

"NONE OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA IS UPLOADED TO EXTERNAL SERVERS! Any permissions Saiy requests are for device level ONLY. Please see our Privacy Policy for full details."

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

My google home started defining a word that sounded like a word that was on my television without anyone saying "Okay Google".

My wife, already afraid of it, whispers to me "It can't hear us, can it?" We were all the way across the basement. I shrugged, and decided to test. I heard a word on the TV and said, in a very low volumne:

"Ok, google, what are ramps?"

"Ramps are a vegetable similar to onions." Not the first definition of "ramps" I would think of.

We were watching a cooking show. It listens all day everyday, combined with all your other google accounts, to have as much context about you and your immediate needs as possible.

It got unplugged that day.

Re: Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] Why are stupid conspiracy theories believed for Alexa, but not for cellphones? [...]

One reason is because the majority of smart-speakers / digital assistants have been assigned the gender of [human] female. Human females by nature lie, cheat, steal, snoop, spy, scheme, & scam, due in part to a nesting instinct. What do you think is behind the prevalence of these smart-speakers / digital assistants? Think about it.

Re:Seriously?

[WaffleMonster]

I think you missed my point. *I* don't think either device is stalking me. The point is that most people also don't think their phone is stalking them, even though it's an order of magnitude more likely for it to be doing some illegal monitoring of your activities than the wifi-only static microphone in one of your rooms. Yet, this microphone is a feared privacy intrusion device (at least on Slashdot), while the one in your pocket that also listens to "ok, google", "hey, siri", "bixby", or even combinations of those, is ok.

So, the question is -- why is that? It's not a question of let's compare which is worse, but why is it that this particular device incites so much anger around here, while others that do the same do not.

The answer may be that you are seeing what you want to see. I don't believe for a second smartphones are getting a pass. I don't think people are OK with Google and app store malware vendor antics and associated vulnerabilities. NSA bulk collection (e.g. Snowden saga), phone companies monetizing data, routing (SS7..etc) vulnerabilities. Articles about apps GPS tracking, swype keyboard spying, flashlight apps that stalk you in the dark. AT&T coziness with NSA/corruption ...There are a large numbers of cellphone and associated privacy related topics routinely discussed here. To say nobody cares or smartphones get a pass is in my estimation ridiculous.

Another major differentiating factor I believe is cost/benefit. Smart speakers are pointless and don't do anything you couldn't easily achieve by other means. Cellular phones provide a capability on the go not easily replaced. While you can take steps to maintain privacy from Google and other app based stalking by modifying your device or loading alternate OS images there is no hiding from cell companies who have to be able to triangulate your approximate location in order for the service to work at all.

Lots of people are speaking up about Google... talking about alternatives such as LineageOS and replacements for Google play services. The issue is THEY ARE NOT DOING IT HERE. because you know what... this is about "SMART" speakers not "SMART" phones.

The "what about this or what about that" is tired. An article critical of Microsoft all of the Microsoft fans come out of the woodwork "WHAT ABOUT APPLE???" or "WHAT ABOUT GOOGLE???" THEY DO IT TOO!!! WHY U NOT MAD @ THEM?

Of course when an article about Apple comes out Apple fans come out of the woodwork... "WHAT ABOUT MICROSOFT???" THEY DO IT TOO!!!

It's all bullshit. People trying these arguments are generally predisposed to like what is being attacked get defensive about it and invoke ridiculous fallacy "x does it too"... as if that somehow means something or in any way justifies the underlying behavior.

Re:Seriously?

[Guybrush_T]

Because 75% of the time what I am calling for is not even in the list and there is nobody to explain my situation to. Let's be clear : the only goal here is to save money.

Re:Seriously?

[Dayze!Confused]

To that end it would be nice to have a "Menu items last changed on May 1st, 2013" instead of the ambiguous "Menu options have recently changed" that some companies have chosen to employ.
I've complained time and again to AA that can't seem to make a system that understands JCJ, part of my frequent flyer number. Or the annoyance with credit card companies that insist on speaking a 16 digit number and inevitably getting it wrong. Even if they could get it right, I don't really like speaking out loud the last four of my social and my credit card number. Sure, the DTMF codes are easily decoded from someone tapping the line, but not as easy for a person two desks down overhearing it, especially with BT headphones on.

Re:Seriously?

[Pulzar]

Ok, maybe you have a point. It's not a particularly solid argument. I obviously can't say if it's just my bias or not, but the first time I've heard of LineageOS is in the responses to my post, while the "over my dead body" reaction to smart speakers accounts for a huge number of any threads that mention it.

I certainly got the impression that there's an unreasonable level of paranoia about these devices that doesn't come out in phone conversations. There seems to be quite a large number of happy iPhone users on here that probably don't have any LineageOS-like options available, and aren't complaining about the possibility of their phones spying on them every time a story about the new iPhone comes out? Or am I wrong?

50%.

[b0s0z0ku]

50% of American households have at least one sheep in them. And I don't mean the kind with wool.

What's that saying about the IQ distribution?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that would cover the theoretical maximum number of people dumb enough to own one of these.

Maybe I'm getting old....

[Vermonter]

...but why exactly would I want one of these? I can already sit at my pc which I am almost always in front of at home, or whip out my phone, to order stuff on Amazon. I don't understand what value these speakers add to my life.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[b0s0z0ku]

They can play tinny, compressed, poor-quality music.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't think about it selfishly, think about doing your part to contribute to a safe and economically vibrant society. Buy one!

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[drnb]

...but why exactly would I want one of these? I can already sit at my pc which I am almost always in front of at home, or whip out my phone, to order stuff on Amazon. I don't understand what value these speakers add to my life.

Think of the quadraphonic stereo early adopters of the 60s/70s. Everyone will have these soon they said.

Setting aside the microphone privacy problem, these speakers are also self configuring for stereo and/or quad. Just plop them down in somewhat arbitrary convenient locations and they will self configure themselves to properly "flood" the room with sound. Its not a bad idea and it is something quite separate from "gizmo, order milk from amazon".

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[The-Ixian]

I was on the fence for a long time about whether or not I wanted one of these, but the clincher was the hands-free cooking aid (eg timers and measurement conversion/math). It fits well into the kitchen.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[registrations_suck]

Is it really such a burden to just wash your fucking hands, and work the keypad on the microwave or calculator you keep in your kitchen drawer to convert from quarts to milligrams or whatever? I mean...damn.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[cayenne8]

Setting aside the microphone privacy problem, these speakers are also self configuring for stereo and/or quad. Just plop them down in somewhat arbitrary convenient locations and they will self configure themselves to properly "flood" the room with sound. Its not a bad idea and it is something quite separate from "gizmo, order milk from amazon".

Hmm...in my home, I listen to my fairly high end audio system I've been building and putting together since I was a kid....

I can't imagine wanting to listen to something that can't possibly reproduce the sound quality and fidelity that my good stereo can....

I can understand listening to lessor systems in poor environments, like a car or a gym, but, why would you want to listen to a small speaker that can't possibly move enough air in the room to sound very good, when you have a good home stereo....?

Or do people not have good home stereo or AV units in their main living rooms ?

Re: Maybe I'm getting old....

[datavirtue]

If you cant do that shit in your head then please delete your fucking Slashdot account.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Miamicanes]

What, you don't enjoy listening to music with lossy compression in glorious MONAURAL?

I really think the mid-90s were the high water mark for music reproduction... CDs had become the norm, everyone had AT LEAST a respectable pair of bookshelf-sized speakers paired with a subwoofer big enough to do 80-100hz properly, and an amp with 50W (RMS) per channel was the baseline norm. Then came mp3, iPods, and the Loudness War, and everything totally went to shit. We're literally back at the point where music doesn't sound much better than a 1960s large FM table radio did. And that really sucks.

Surround sound with 96khz 24-bit audio was supposed to be the NORM by now. And it probably would have been, if the music industry and consumer electronics industries hadn't fucked up SACD so completely and thoroughly with DRM.... then given in to the Loudness Wars to make CDs sound even worse than low-bitrate MP3s thanks to clipping (CLIPPING, for fuck's sake!)

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[demonlapin]

I can’t speak for everyone, but my house came with in-ceiling speakers that would be a nightmare to get to, and the primary TV room is open with the kitchen - so it has tile floors. A good stereo system would be wasted in there even if I could figure out how to get good speakers in.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Miamicanes]

I don't remember the exact reason, but my dad (a major audiophile) told me that all of the various 1970s-era Quad encoding schemes had some major, fatal flaw that didn't really become obvious (to anyone outside the industry itself) until lots of people had quad setups & they realized it was endemic rather than just their own fault. From what I recall, the "sweet spot" was REALLY small (like, in a 10x12 foot room, something like a 1x2 foot zone), and the speaker placement wasn't compatible with normal stereo listening. It was probably something that COULD have been fixed after the fact with modern digital signal processing, but in the 70s, that kind of DSP power didn't even exist for STUDIOS, let alone home use.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[cayenne8]

I canâ(TM)t speak for everyone, but my house came with in-ceiling speakers that would be a nightmare to get to, and the primary TV room is open with the kitchen - so it has tile floors. A good stereo system would be wasted in there even if I could figure out how to get good speakers in.

I'm guessing there has to be a place you input into the ceiling speakers, right?

Just a thought, that the new Dolby ATMOS (sp?) systems now use speakers over you as part of the surround signal, you might could use the ceiling speakers as that part for movies....

> Of course some rooms are better than others, and could benefit from sound deadening and such to help 'tune' the room....but if you get a decent quality AV receiver/processer....those often come with mics and utilities to set up and EQ things for your room, and I think some of those can even tame lots of tile....

Just something to consider...in the long run, you'll have better sound quality with a good system and good floor standing speakers....and in your case a good EQ would help things.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[WinstonWolfIT]

Yes Luddite.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Anonymous Coward]

You could probably have bought a tablet and stand to setup in the kitchen. Google's home speaker is basically just its search engine which already had voice-support.

I don't know if it'll read the answer back to you though. (But it definitely can open apps and probably play music.)

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Anonymous Coward]

Then these speakers aren't for you. Just because a products works for a particular demographic, doesn't mean it has to work for everyone.

I can't imagine anyone using anything but unix, the one true OS. However, Windows seems to be quite a good enough for the masses - they obviously don't know anything. I suspect these speakers will be good enough for quite a few people - myself probably included, if I even cared enough for that good of a sound system.

--XYZZY--

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Aighearach]

I've got a pair of quadraphonic headphones... dual 1/4" stereo plugs!

Maybe I should use an ESP-32 and smarten them up a bit! lol

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Aighearach]

I use android apps on a wifi tablet, no need to wash hands just wipe the screen afterwards.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny enough, many consumer-grade receivers have gone backwards too when it comes to component quality.

Receivers now sell on features (e.g., the latest decoding) rather than component quality (e.g., amplification).

Consider the Sony DA777ES receiver. It came out in what? 2004 or something? And it's still considered the best receiver Sony has made by far, no competition. And it doesnt even accept HDMI.

Re: Maybe I'm getting old....

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my favorite jazz recordings is the 1938 Benny Goodman Carnaegie Hall concert. I have my father's boxed set of 45s and I have the Columbia LP version. It is awesome music, Goodman's band at the time was soooo talented and so tight as a band.

The recording was made with one single microphone in the ceiling in the hall.

Sure, the recording is technically flawed. I listen to the music, not the artifacts of the recording technology.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[thegarbz]

Surround sound with 96khz 24-bit audio was supposed to be the NORM by now. And it probably would have been, if the music industry and consumer electronics industries hadn't fucked up SACD so completely and thoroughly with DRM....

Never attributed to DRM that which could be attributed to 96khz 24-bit audio being frigging pointless with no audible benefits to the consumer.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[Daralantan]

I always wonder about the ads for this where someone says something like: "Alexa order me some paper towels." .... You don't care what brand? Cost? Amount?

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair the high end ones have really good sound. Google and Apple in particular. They do room correction and are generally a lot better than most comparable hifi systems.

Assuming you have an AptX Bluetooth source of course.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[demonlapin]

Your thoughts are undoubtedly true, but: it’s open to the kitchen (so, noisy) , and there’s nowhere to put floor speakers that would not be staggeringly ugly. Also, cats live in this area, so you can pretty much write off anything scratchable. Thanks though; if I ever buy a house with a media space, I’ll keep it in mind.

Re: Maybe I'm getting old....

[Miamicanes]

44.1KHz might be the Nyquist minimum for 22.05KHz, but remember... the ONLY thing Nyquist actually *guarantees* is that a sampling rate less than twice the highest frequency will be inadequate & suck. If you want to avoid higher-order artifacts (think: wheels in film appearing to roll backwards), Nyquist minimum isn't good enough. Even with 44.1KHz sampling, frequencies above ~12KHz need light filtering. Increase the sample rate to 4x max frequency (88.2KHz+), and 90-99% of the 44.1KHz artifacts go away.

So, why 192KHz? For historical reasons, music is 44.1, but movies are 48. Double both to eliminate nearly all audible higher-order artifacts, and you get 88.2 and 96. But if you have to do realtime digital mixing of both, you need to at least double again to avoid the majority of bit-slip mixing errors (and preferabiy, quadruple). So even 192KHz is a technical compromise that effectively gives you 4x oversampling with 44.1 & 48, or 2x oversampling with 88.2 & 96.

Put another way, when digitally mixing source at two different sample rates, Nyquist kicks in all over again... but even worse, because you ALSO have bit-clock-synchronization to worry about. If your output is locked to 48KHz, playback of 44.1KHz source will always be compromised. If your output is locked to 96KHz, 44.1 will be slightly compromised relative to 48, but 99% of the second-order artifacts you'd get if locked to 48khz are mitigated.

TL/DR: Nyquist is a rock-bottom minimum, not a guarantee of adequacy. To eliminate more complex & subtle errors, especially when digitally-mixing (and even moreso when bit-clocks aren't synchronized or stable), you need much, MUCH higher sample rates than Nyquist appears to suggest based on source-audio frequency alone.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[badboy_tw2002]

I'm envisioning a scene like in Forest Gump where every member of Lt. Dan's family died in a war, except its every member of your family going back to the stone age and standing next to some invention saying the exact same thing.

Re: Maybe I'm getting old....

[thegarbz]

If you want to avoid higher-order artifacts (think: wheels in film appearing to roll backwards), Nyquist minimum isn't good enough.

I hear you. You know how doesn't? The endless army of audiophiles who can't tell the two formats apart. Nyquist is the bare minimum for the person with perfect hearing, and even those people haven't been able to tell content at the two different sample rates let alone bit depths apart in A/B testing.

If your output is locked to 48KHz, playback of 44.1KHz source will always be compromised.

No one caring about the source of their music will be listening on equipment with a single locked master source.

TL/DR: Nyquist is a rock-bottom minimum, not a guarantee of adequacy.

Before you claim about the lack of adequacy, find some definitive sources of people who can prove in A/B trials that they find 44.1kHz 16bit sources inadequate.

especially when digitally-mixing

Especially irrelevant to consumers. I did not say you don't need higher sample rates or bit depths in the studio, that is a most definite. I said SACD is a failure for consumers because there's no benefit to consumers.

Actually that's not 100% true. At least some studios did put a minimum amount of effort into re-mastering some old releases for the SACD release. But the reality is they could have done that and released the result on CD too and it would have been more than adequate for everyone except for mathematicians.

Re:Maybe I'm getting old....

[toddestan]

My understanding is the fatal flaw is that there was no inexpensive and good way to encode quadrophonic sound using the technology of the day. You had either vinyl, which while being relatively easy to encode 2 channels into a groove - there was no good way to do 4 channels. You could do it by playing various tricks, but you ended up with a lot of crosstalk and bleedover between the channels. Or you could use tape which already didn't sound as good (ignoring stuff like professional-level reel to reel), and make it more complicated and expensive with multiple heads. And you either had to make the tape wider, or suffer more noise and a hit in quality if instead you made the tracks narrower.

The eventual solution would be to use CD's as you would digitally store all the channels separately in perfect clarity. But even then, all other things equal, a CD that can hold 70 minutes of stereo sound could only hold 35 minutes of quadrophonic audio, which is not quite enough for most albums.

My cold dead hands

[sinij]

Only if they pry one into my cold dead hands!

Re:My cold dead hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon, smart speakers at the cemeteries announcing the dead and giving vocal obituaries to anyone passing by.

Re: My cold dead hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, there's a popular Pokemon Go gym in the corner of the cemetary. Lately there seem to always be a few cars stopped on the road at that spot in the cemetary. I am wondering how long before it becomes a problem for people who are not in the cemetary to play P. Go...

Re:My cold dead hands

[antdude]

We can arrange that. --companies

You can quote me on this:

[argStyopa]

"No fucking way."

-Styopa
September 2018

Re:You can quote me on this:

[sinij]

"No fucking way."

Cure for cancer was just discovered, but it is only available as IoT.

Re:You can quote me on this:

[Aighearach]

Back to Creative Writing with you, we demand better stories.

Re:You can quote me on this:

[Anonymous Coward]

There's straw and then there's that brightly colored wad of plastic filaments you see in Easter egg baskets. Your example is the latter.

Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

The latest models have red, yellow and green lights to let you know if your conversations align with acceptable domestic security guidelines. For example:
Green: consuming Fortune 500 products, watching sports, discussing celebrities, Yellow: discussing taxes, social justice or foreign policy, Red: statements in support of fringe candidates (e.g., from Vermont), negative statements about taxes or fees, unflattering comments about incumbent politicians (or politicians from powerful families), discussion of election security or any foreign or domestic agency's influence on them, and citing of facts not previously vetted by a major TV news organization.

Get your smart speaker today, Citizen, for only 150 Visa credits!

Re: Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[Anonymous Coward]

The rbg one will also tell gop or dem

Re:Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest models have red, yellow and green lights to let you know if your conversations align with acceptable domestic security guidelines.

You forgot the blue and orange lights...
Homeland Security Advisory System

Re: Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[datavirtue]

Good job but there is only red and green.

Re:Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest models have red, yellow and green lights to let you know if your conversations align with acceptable domestic security guidelines. For example:
Green: consuming Fortune 500 products, watching sports, discussing celebrities, Yellow: discussing taxes, social justice or foreign policy, Red: statements in support of fringe candidates (e.g., from Vermont),

You do realize that the vendor of the number two smart speaker (Google) is full of people well to the left of Sanders, right? The employees of this company were happy to form an online lynch mob to ban use of their cloud by the US government, and to publicly shame a man who thought science should be used to challenge the religion of identity politics. I hear Amazon is only slightly less intolerant of non-marxists.

It is not the left who should be afraid of big brother. Republicans will be the first against the wall. Democrats who refuse to denounce private property will be next.

Re: Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just the power light, the blood makes it turn red after you say the wrong thing.

Re:Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[Rick Schumann]

Consider yourself modded up -- and most certainly woke.

Re: Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[Anonymous Coward]

'Orange Alert. Orange Alert' (video segment of Rover detaching from the sea floor)

Re:Latest models have red/yellow/green lights

[joe_frisch]

No, that's not how it works in a really oppressive society. It always listens and rates you on your conversations - secretly. You never know for sure what is OK, you just know that if you say the wrong things too often your social credit score will go down and eventually bad things (tm) will happen to you and your family and friends. That way you go out of your way to be extra careful. You report on neighbors because you don't know if failure to report might be what puts you over the edge.

Wording

[bob4u2c]

I wonder how many people mis-understood the question and answered yes?

The real question would be to ask how do you use your smart speaker? Unless they say: to answer questions and connect to voice activated services, then their smart speaker are probably just a set of normal speakers they connected to an ipod dock.

They will all soon be buying telescreens

[Anonymous Coward]

Alexa and Cortana will be making sure you’re being doubleplusgood.

Re:They will all soon be buying telescreens

[Anonymous Coward]

I am already doubleplusgood, where is my cheap alcohol, pornography and a lottery tickets?!

I'll get one when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alexa, mute all commercials!

I just don't see it

[SuperKendall]

I know what they really mean by "smart speakers" is Alexa devices, but I just don't see how Amazon could have that kind of reach by 2019, even with very cheap models and bundling Alexia in with other devices (like cars).

Disturbing trend, if so.

Re:I just don't see it

[ShanghaiBill]

More than half the people I know already have an Alexa. So I don't think half of households by 2019 is unrealistic at all.

Re:I just don't see it

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's not Alexa being bundled in everything,. It's Google Home being bundled in most Android smartphones.

Re:I just don't see it

[SuperKendall]

Aha, that makes a lot more sense to me as a possible answer to sheer numbers (though is not then very indicative of how many will make use of it).

Re: I just don't see it

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in a rarified world, filled with mostly one percenters.

Yes, we know you're proud of your achivement.

Re: I just don't see it

[tbq]

You live in a rarified world, filled with mostly one percenters.

You have to think globally. To be in the top 1% of income earners on the planet you need to earn only $32,400 USD per year; barely over minimum wage in some areas. Source: An Echo Dot is $50 or less, affordable by many who earn even less than $32K per year.

Wasn't there a study or something of opposite?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a few weeks or a month ago, that the "smart" speakers are pretty stupid (as in not very smart) and most of the people have just put them in a box, because they are pretty useless?

I love technology

[MpVpRb]

As a semi-retired engineer, I use technology whenever I find it useful
"Smart Speakers" and "Smart Appliances" seem like silly fads to me. I can't imagine where they would be useful
Even worse, they raise troublesome privacy issues

Re:I love technology

[forkfail]

This technology isn't for you use.

This technology is to use you.

Re:I love technology

[jwhyche]

I would hesitate to call them "smart" at all. Setting aside privacy issues these things barely work as intended. I've tried to get my google assistant on my phone to work for several years. Damn things still mis-understands half of what I say and ignores the other half. I figure if I was to bring home one of these "smart" doohickeys I would spend half my time yelling at the damn thing and the other half manually doing with I was yelling at it to do in the first place.

me: "We are out of coke?"
smart thing: "I've ordered you a pound of coke. Would you like a hooker to go with it?"

Re:I love technology

[Anonymous Coward]

forkfall believes he can write catchy and insightful phrases.

forkfall doesn't know he can't.

Re:I love technology

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're semi-retired, then you're probably getting too old to be worth spying on; so you don't count...for much of anything.

Re:I love technology

[swillden]

"Smart Speakers" and "Smart Appliances" seem like silly fads to me. I can't imagine where they would be useful

Apparently half of Americans have more imagination than you do :-)

In all seriousness, we find ours pretty useful. Enough that I've put them in most rooms in the house. They serve as an intercom system as well as alarm clocks, timers, shared grocery list managers, music players and general information lookup devices... all voice-controlled. I put one in the TV room, and that's turned out to be quite nice; I especially like when someone asks "What did he say?" I can just say "Hey Google, back up 20 seconds"; no fumbling for the remote.

Even worse, they raise troublesome privacy issues

Not really. At least, no more than telephones do -- and I include not just modern mobile phones but old hardwired land-lines as well.

Re:I love technology

[Anonymous Coward]

smart thing: "I've ordered you a pound of coke. Would you like a hooker to go with it?"

me: You bet your shiny metal ass I do!

Re: I love technology

[Anonymous Coward]

It reminds me of the clever "you are google's product" bromides.

Re:I love technology

[Anonymous Coward]

From your example it sounds like it's working perfectly!

Re: I love technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of America has zero interest, the other half is curious the way people were curious about 3D television, etc.

Re:I love technology

[phantomfive]

People mostly use them to play music.

Alexa, play bye American Pie!

Re:I love technology

[thegarbz]

I can't imagine where they would be useful

I am like you. We have a unboxed Google Home here which I won in a competition I was peer pressured into joining.

My mother on the other hand thinks it's the best kitchen accessory ever. I mean she exclusively uses it now to add things to a shopping list while she's cooking but she's absolutely amazed that this device has solved the very real problem for her that was having a short term memory that sucks and getting food all over her iPhone when she uses the last of an ingredient while cooking.

Re:I love technology

[Daralantan]

If smart stuff was as capable as the stuff in movies like Iron Man... that'd be great. It's nowhere near some useful and easy / nice level like that yet so it seems kind of silly right now outside of "LOOK HOW COOL I AM I HAVE THIS NEW THING ADMIRE ME PLEASE," basically.

In related news:

[Gravis Zero]

Fools and their valuables are soon parted! Few realize the value of their privacy or real ownership.

Feudalism is making a comeback.

Dumb speaker

[ToasterTester]

I got one of these so I wouldn't have to put together another sound system in my bedroom, for that purpose it's been inexpensive and sound is good enough. But it is far from smart sometimes I have to say the name of the artist or playlist I want multiple times before it gets it. Some of the playlists I make are because it can't understand the artists name so I make a list with a simpler name. So if it want to listen to my farts in my sleep enjoy. I does have a microphone off, and just unpluging the power is just as easy. It is spooky how much it does pickup, I can be in my other room and tell it to shut off and it hears me.

Last I find myself using less as time goes by. At first it was fun checking news, weather, and Yankees scores, but now I stopped most of that and even don't listen to it at night as much. So the novelty is wearing off and the fact it does hear (and probably misinterprets) what I say I don't foresee myself using it long time.

Re: Dumb speaker

[datavirtue]

The first requirement is recording every sound, squawk, and squeek possible and sending it back to the server for analysis. Everything else is later in the user story.

technoids are different

[sdinfoserv]

It's pretty clear from the comments that virtually 100% of readers this site have poor opinions of these devices. I think it demonstrates the clear lack of understating in "joe 6 pack" when it comes to technology and privacy.

NEVER going to own one

[Kobun]

They might sneak it in via a Smartphone that is secretly always listening, or like Samsung has done with their TVs/monitors, but I will never knowingly buy one of these Orwellian pieces of shit.

Re: NEVER going to own one

[Anonymous Coward]

Word to the wise..

Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[divide overflow]

Not only is Big Brother watching you, he has convinced you to pay for the privilege. For this I give a big Orwellian facepalm.

Re:Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[swillden]

Not only is Big Brother watching you, he has convinced you to pay for the privilege. For this I give a big Orwellian facepalm.

How is this different from the hardwired telephone we had in the kitchen when I was a kid? And how is it different from all of the smartphones lying around the house now? I suppose the microphone on the smart speaker is higher-quality...

Re:Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[divide overflow]

For a start read 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

Re:Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[BeaverCleaver]

Just in case you're not trolling:

A hardwired telephone was not active when it was hung up. Mobile telephones are limited by size and battery therefore not so well optimised for listening to all conversations in the room. A "smart speaker" in every room has much higher coverage than a couple of smart phones lying around that may or may not be turned on, have an active data connection, and be well-placed to listen.

Re:Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[divide overflow]

Not to mention they are designed from the start to hear you from all positions in a room, and if possible use microphone arrays to both filter out unwanted noise interference and to track your voice directionally, thereby have the ability to track your location in a room.

Re: Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wholeheartedly agree. Its quite amazing, truly, that people will pay explicitly for an always listening device, all voluntarily!!

And no, it is not the same as a phone....

Re:Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[WaffleMonster]

How is this different from the hardwired telephone we had in the kitchen when I was a kid?

My guess would be wiretapping a telephone is a felony. It's illegal to wiretap without legal cause.

And how is it different from all of the smartphones lying around the house now?

Smartphones are loaded with malware (Google play services and apps downloaded from Google play store) that stalk you with reckless abandon without any fear of political or criminal liability.

I suppose the microphone on the smart speaker is higher-quality...

Yea that... jokes... and ridiculous logic.. that thing over there is just as bad so it doesn't matter if we commit the same transgression.

Re:Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[joe_frisch]

It is pretty impressive - even Orwell couldn't imagine people paying to have telescrenes put in their homes. The other thing he missed (because it didn't exist yet) is the power of recording everything. Now, if you do something "bad", its possible to look back at your records and the records of everyone you interacted with to see who else is culpable.

Re:Say Goodbye to Privacy!

[divide overflow]

Now, if you do something "bad", its possible to look back at your records and the records of everyone you interacted with to see who else is culpable.

Or if someone you have ever interacted with is under suspicion *they* may be investigated and a network chart of their connections to others generated, potentially dragging you into the crosshairs.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Raw bullshit from an accomplished bullshit artist.

Don't you mean corporation spy speaker?

[oogoliegoogolie]

Conversations with smart speaker owners usually go something like this:

Friend: "I just bought an Amazon Echo/Google/Apple/whoever smart speaker. It is amazing what it can do."
Me: "What can it do now that you could not do before?"
Friend:"Well it can control my Hue lights, make phone calls, and play music."
Me:"Can't you do that with your phone already?"
Friend:"Yes, but now I can use my smart speaker!"
Me:"So tap-tap-tap-tap on your phone was too much work?"
Friend:"No, but this is newer so it's cooler and more modern!"
Me:"You do know your voice is recorded and sent back to their servers, stored, and is accessible to them and to god-only-knows-whoever their business partners are, right?"
Friend:"They are a hi-tech company and they say they wouldn't do anything to violate my privacy with that, so there!"
Me:"So then, would it be ok if I install a microphone in your home that records whatever you say and have the recordings sent back to me? I will only store them, promise never to listen to them, and never use them for any other purpose without your consent. You can trust me!"
Friend:"NO NO NO! I will not let you do that-it would violate my privacy."
Me:"Sigh!"

Re:Don't you mean corporation spy speaker?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Me:"So tap-tap-tap-tap on your phone was too much work?"
I will never own a "smart speaker" but yes tapping phones to do a thing is more work than issuing a voice command. Sometimes your phone is not at hand.

Re:Don't you mean corporation spy speaker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Me:"So then, would it be ok if I install a microphone in your home that records whatever you say and have the recordings sent back to me? I will only store them, promise never to listen to them, and never use them for any other purpose without your consent. You can trust me!"

Aside from any technical trust I have that the data is only relayed after the activation phrase (yes I believe them) your situation is completely different. If you are my friend, we have a personal "intimate" connection, the voyeur in you may find interest in my private conversations. Google / Amazon whoever are simply trying to sell me more stuff. I don't want YOU to hear everything said in my house, google, amazon... they can hear what they like.

Re:Don't you mean corporation spy speaker?

[phantomfive]

"They are a hi-tech company and they say they wouldn't do anything to violate my privacy

That's basically an oxymoron: privacy-protecting high-tech company.

Re:Don't you mean corporation spy speaker?

[thegarbz]

Me:"So then, would it be ok if I install a microphone in your home that records whatever you say and have the recordings sent back to me? I will only store them, promise never to listen to them, and never use them for any other purpose without your consent. You can trust me!"

Your logical fallacy is Equivocation!

Trusting a data aggregator who doesn't know you and makes it a business to aggregate and protect your data with predictable outcomes is nothing at all like trusting your data with some person who is collecting your data specifically and has a specific link to you.

Now that said I don't like the idea of a listening device in my house either, but your arguement still fails to understand the principles of trust and how they apply to people.

Smart Speakers Listening In Everywhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if one doesn't own a so-called smart speaker, very likely many of their friends do. So when visiting others, one has to assume someone could be listening in. Likewise in personal vehicles, public transit, workplace, etc.

As time goes on, more people will set aside places in their homes with no smart speakers, no mobile phones, no computers / laptops, and no other electronics (ie. radios, tvs, etc) allowed for private gatherings. Risk of socializing with others, even close friends, without taking such precautions is getting more extreme by the day.

Re:Smart Speakers Listening In Everywhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when having the wrong opinion about anything can get one branded as a nazi for life by a social media lynchmob, we all must be vigilant to have the most bland opinions possible in case someone is listening.

Speakers owned (likely) Speakers used

[Photonmaker]

We have three unused Alexa units in the house - gift from my sister to my kids. Two kids have privacy concerns, and the third doesn't know how to set it up (I could, but best she learns how to set things up herself). Last I saw one in the house it was being used as a raised pricey coaster.

Well

[DaMattster]

I will be part of the 50% that do not (and never will) get a smart speaker. Given the IoT idustry's abysmal security record and the very real possibility that these devices will be used to spy on me, I will do without the damn thing. Too much technology isn't a good idea at all. I also refuse to buy smart TVs and smart appliances. The dumber my TV and appliances are, the better!

depends on what smart means in this case.

[goombah99]

There's microphones that are merely conduits for Siri/ok google/cortana/alexa. A few of these actually have some multi microphone directional listening capability which makes them slightly smarter.

this is not different than any android phone. I wonder also why they call is a smart speaker rather than a smart microphone.

In any case there is as far as I know only one consumer grade mass produced "smart" speaker in existence and that is the apple home pod. It actually senses it's accoustic environment, measuring directional echos and frequency response. And then it adjusts a multi-speaker emitter to adapt smartly to the accoustic environment it is placed in. It's something of a breakthough. It even lets you get stereo transmission from a single unit via the directional capabilities and expoiting wall reflections. It lets it use the table it has been set on as a sounding board without driving it to a buzz. It's really something actually new in the field of stereos. You don'thave to like it. But recognize it's using different physics than anything before it in the consumer domain.

that's what I'd call a smart stereo.

Re: depends on what smart means in this case.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've swallowed and regurgitated the whole list of bullet points.

How awesome.

So the speculation is that half of them are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said

smart speakers are double plus good

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than a Telescreen.

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
— George Orwell, 1984

They Are Actually Smart Microphones

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to realize that. Calling them smart speakers hides the most dangerous part of their functionality.

Nobody cares about speakers. People should care about microphones. Always-listening microphones.

I'll never have one. Never.

People are fucking idiots.

[Chas]

Yep. Individual specimens can be fine, even intelligent.
But on the whole, "people" have the collective intelligence of someone in persistent vegetative state undergoing a full frontal lobotomy.

as the naysayers again crawl from the woodwork

[swell]

Some Slashdot readers don't recall the invention of the answering machine. You don't recall your parents insisting "I'm never going to talk to a machine!". Other Slashdot readers should be ashamed for forgetting that they once swore "Computer mice are for sissies. What's wrong with command line?".

Now they are saying that they will never talk to a 'smart speaker'. Each of you should tattoo that statement on your arm, along with the date. Look at it every day until you talk to smart speakers. Then shut up and don't say anything so stupid till you die.

Re:as the naysayers again crawl from the woodwork

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't talk to answering machines, and mice make my hands hurt if I use them for more than about 20 minutes.

Not buying a smart speaker.

Not getting a tattoo either, I get scars for free.

Re:as the naysayers again crawl from the woodwork

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they are saying that they will never talk to a 'smart speaker'. Each of you should tattoo that statement on your arm, along with the date. Look at it every day until you talk to smart speakers. Then shut up and don't say anything so stupid till you die.

Now they are saying that they will never talk to a 'fire breathing dragon'. Each of you should tattoo that statement on your arm, along with the date. Look at it every day until you talk to fire breathing dragons. Then shut up and don't say anything so stupid till you die.

Re:as the naysayers again crawl from the woodwork

[phantomfive]

they once swore "Computer mice are for sissies. What's wrong with command line?".

Well, I still use the command-line.

Re:as the naysayers again crawl from the woodwork

[DiziFragmaniTV]

Einige Slashdot-Leser erinnern sich nicht an die Erfindung des Anrufbeantworters. Du bestehst nicht darauf, dass ich nie mit einer Maschine sprechen werde. Andere Slashdot-Leser sagten einmal: "Computermäuse sind für Brüder. Was ist auf der Kommandozeile?" Sie muss sich ihrer Eide schämen. https://dizihaberi.tv/samsung-...

I will never use one

[Anonymous Coward]

unless it's through an API that I control.

Re:I will never use one

[joe_frisch]

Maybe - but maybe not. As more and more devices record / monitor you will find that you either have to give up being part of modern society, or accept being tracked. Do you not have a cell phone? (OK if you don't, and I admire your resolve, but most people give in eventually).

Unfortunately...

[nospam007]

...we need much more a Speaker of the House who is smart.

The ONLY Internet connected devices in my home wil

[Anonymous Coward]

my desktops, laptops, tablets, HTPC, smartphones, servers, router and gateway. My furnace/AC is Wifi enabled but I noped out of that. Same for my home security system.

I have no smart TVs, fridges, wearables, lamps and any other IoT doodads, and never will.

Courtesy in Surveillance

[shplopt]

I hope we can come to a cultural understand that it is not OK to invite a person into one's home without informing that person of listening devices. I really, really don't want to be the kind of asshole that brings up this sort of thing. I realize it sounds like pedantry and smug point-making to do this, but if these things really do take off as projected, and it doesn't become common courtesy I'm going to be a raging asshole.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

With home ownership dropping in the US, and housing costs forcing more people to live in small apartments or with roommates a smart speaker is just a privacy nightmare. I'm not going to ask internet searches into the air so everyone can hear them when I could just type it up on my desktop which is in the same room, or my phone which is in my pocket. I might consider if I had a house and kids, but fewer and fewer Americans have a house and/or kids these days, so you really have to wonder if these sales projections are wishful thinking.

Smart speaker's functionality is not new...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, when was the last time you used Siri for anything? Be honest. Last time was a few years ago for me. Why would buy a $300 Siri-in-a-box when I already don't use the one in my phone?

7 mics

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that the microphone on my cell phone sucks and no one can hear me anyway. So no threat there.

Now - if they were to take a "smart speaker" microphone and somehow graft it on to a phone, thereby making it possible to use your phone to talk to people and have them understanding you - well, shit, then they'd have something!!

Cell phones have 3-4 microphones. The "smart" speakers have up to seven.
It's a phased array for directional listening.

Re: 7 mics

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. That must be why the speakers donâ(TM)t suck and the phones do.

After 2019 it will be required!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many fingers Winston!!!! Four?

More complete and utter bullshit

[Rick Schumann]

We say it's going to happen therefore it has to be true, BELIEVE IT!

Yeah sure and tablet computers were going to make desktops and laptops extinct.

You are a FOOL if you believe this, and a BIGGER fool if you run out and start buying these gods-be-damned surveillance devices.

I've been watching this technology since 1969...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was old enough to (barely) understand an episode of Star Trek. For decades we've watched fictional characters from the future interact with computers by voice. And everyone's surprised this tech is taking off? This is flying-cars, jet-pack kind of stuff that you can buy for the price of a dinner out. And I hate to break it to you slashdotters, but the normal world out there could care less that these things are "listening". None of us are saying anything worth caring about, and no one is actively cataloging all the audio that smart speakers collect. If you're plotting a crime I would recommend you unplug your devices, if that makes you feel better.

TFS says own

[rossdee]

TFS says own, not necessarily use.

You might get given one for Xmas, but never take it out of the box.

DIY...

[sarren1901]

If I wanted a smart speaker/voice assistant in my home, I would build one myself. Just a simple search of "raspberry pi voice assistant" get's you a few options to start from.

It's bad enough our phones are always nearby. I hope they aren't always listening and I've done my best to turn off many "helpful" features on my phone, but how do we really know? Clever programming could send everything it hears to a server using the cell-link and if all the "system apps" you can't get rid of cover this up by just not reporting the data usage, device being on, etc, 99.99% of us would be left completely unaware.

Unless you jail-break and install a plain copy of android, and that may not even be good enough, you can't really know and have to trust these corporations that constantly show themselves to be not trustworthy.

Heck, even if you could compile your own OS for a cellphone, would any carrier take you? Perhaps a sim-based carrier would allow your device on. Wifi isn't always available after all.

Universal audio surveillance by 2030

[Anonymous Coward]

What a time to be alive. I can't help feeling we deserve our fate.

Morons.

And by march 2019...

[AmazingRuss]

.... they'll all be screaming at their speaker like it's a half deaf microcephalic. Which it pretty much is.

fads

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

It will make a great companion for my 3D TV!

passing fad.

[stooo]

50% will own a smart speaker in 2019
10% will own a smart speaker in 2020
1% will own a smart speaker in 2021

What is this study based on???

[Daralantan]

I know almost no one that has any big interest in getting any of the smart speaker stuff. The sales numbers haven't even been that impressive (while some are doing well, haven't all of them been selling way under all projected and expected numbers? or did something change?) from what I recall seeing. This seems more like an ad trying to encourage people to buy a smart speaker "before it becomes cool!"

Re:What is this study based on???

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen one outside of a store. This is an ad for sure.

One of those 1960s FM Table Radios...

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/klh_klh_twenty_one_21.html

Mine sounds pretty damn good even today.

That's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never encountered one in the wild. Did they only poll millennials? I wouldn't count on the longevity of anything with that cohort, and I would hardly call them a majority. Also, it's a bit disengenuous to say computing has been revolutionized, to say the least. This reads more like a marketing department's press release, and that is likely what it is.

DAC

[DrYak]

Surround sound with 96khz 24-bit audio was supposed to be the NORM by now.

What's the purpose ? You don't even have a biological sensor capable of telling the difference.

And for the record, most of the DACs used nowadays, tend to be capable of operating at even *192kHz / 24bits*.
Not that it matters much.
It's just that there's no source that can actually drive that (thank you lossy compression with several generations of loss in between),
and even if you had, the quality of the component won't deliver it in practice.
(And again, even if it was delivered to your ear, your ear wouldn't tell the difference).

No reason to trust proprietary software

[jbn-o]

There is no reason to trust either a tracker (a more honest name for a mobile phone or cell phone along the lines of the time-honored wisdom of calling things by their proper names—we should recognize what those devices do most). There is no reason to trust the Echo or Home spy speakers either. The same reason applies—users don't control their computers when those computers running proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating) software. There's nothing to be gained in a distraction over which computer is more trustworthy. The goal should be to respect all computer users' software freedom for all of their computers. No matter what network analysis reveals about any of the spy speakers today (and no matter how thorough the analysis is) because that result could be rendered obsolete as quickly as Amazon can get Echo devices to install a software update (the Amazon Echo appears to have a universal backdoor as it installs updates automatically). The FSF looked into this and remarked "We have found nothing explicitly documenting the lack of any way to disable remote changes to the software, so we are not completely sure there isn't one, but it seems pretty clear."

As for evidence of turning the Amazon Echo into a listening device, it appears this was done by a party other than Amazon. Again on this the FSF remarks, "It was very difficult for them to do this. The job would be much easier for Amazon. And if some government such as China or the US told Amazon to do this, or cease to sell the product in that country, do you think Amazon would have the moral fiber to say no?". Amazon is the same organization that remotely erased people's legally-acquired books about which the FSF remarked

One of the books erased was 1984, by George Orwell. Amazon responded to criticism by saying it would delete books only following orders from the state. However, that policy didn't last. In 2012 it wiped a user's Kindle-Swindle and deleted her account, then offered her kafkaesque "explanations."

The wisdom of software freedom—a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software—remains apt and clear: proprietary software is untrustworthy by default.

The future of Smart technology - Park Colonial

[dummybakeapie]

I couldn't agree with you more that more people will own their own smart technology speaker. Some of the smart technology had already installed in Park Colonial, Riverfront Residences and Parc Esta. The world is moving too fast and technology has been improving each day. There are more to catch up with other development that introduce these smart technology, such as JadeScape, 8 Hullet, Uptown@Farrer, Riverfront Residences and Margaret Ville. All these introduced a new culture that could shape the world again differently. I have constantly searching for new technology to add more value to people's lifestyle.