[aRationalMoose]

I actually think this is where googles assistant falls flat. "Speaking" with google doens't feel as natural as it does for Alexa, Cortana or even Siri. Part of the humanization i think, is the name. That's been the case for me anyway. Saying "Hey google" feels less natural than saying "Hey Alexa"

[TheOtherHobbes]

That looks like a minor point, but I think it underscores Google's cultural problem.

Google has had so many failures in the calendar/blog/assistant space because Google doesn't understand ordinary people.

It's an elite company full of elite engineers running elite engineering projects (and a lot of search). It has no internal cultural reference point for average-IQ non-elite users.

This is why Google has so bad at productising interesting ideas that Google didn't invent, and which have to deal with real competition.

The software works, mostly. But users don't feel there's anything special or unique about the experience.

You could argue - reasonably - this is all about perception management. Apple does well because it sells its products as stylish and magical. Even if the technological reality is mediocre, Apple has consistently managed to create a brand that is good at making technology seem humanised.

Google has never understood why that kind of marketing is necessary. The technology is good, it should speak for itself. If customers don't get it - no one understands why.

Now with AI, the pitch is out of key for the same reasons. Most people don't want something that anticipates their intentions, because that's just creepy. Even if it works well, it creates an experience of diminished control and empowerment.

It's like someone saying "Trust me" when they're promising you something new, but they've never given you a reason to. Does the AI know you well enough to make the right decisions? Why would it?

Unless Google can dramatise that it does, reliably, they're not going anywhere with this one, no matter how good the technology really is.