[WAthrowaway]

You could also just not buy one of those awful things. I have never seen a legitimate use for it that wasn't misplaced adolescent tech fantasies (omg I can tell big brother to make coffee and my keurig starts up!). But maybe my line of business has made me excessively paranoid / niche

I would like to make an edit: functionality for those with disabilities is a huge use-case I did not consider. Thank you for your insightful comments

[michaelmior]

I like to be able to play music, ask simple questions, etc. without pulling out my phone. I don't understand why those aren't "legitimate" use cases. Maybe you don't like the tradeoff you're making in using such a device, but if I'm fine with it, how are my uses cases not legitimate?

[weberc2]

Yeah, I got one for Christmas a couple of years ago; thought it would be really gimmicky, but I find it's actually quite a lot nicer to use than my phone or other devices for the following:

* Turning on/off lights

* Changing the thermostat set temp

* Asking about the weather forecast

* Add items to a shopping list

* Playing music

If you can't imagine a voice interface being appreciably better than a phone interface for these things, I recommend withholding judgment until you've tried it.

Also, to be very clear (since some people have a knack for arguing points I never made), I'm explicitly not saying that the current hot-mic implementation is technically necessary or ideal, nor that these conveniences justify the privacy tradeoff.

[ehsankia]

It's also worth noting that you don't always have to do it with voice either. If I'm on the couch with my phone, I might use it to update my shopping list, whereas if I'm in the kitchen cooking, I'll use voice. Similarly, if I just want random music, I will say "play music", but if I want a specific album, I might use my phone, especially if it has a complicated name that I don't remember.

Obviously not every action is easier or more optimal by voice, but having the option is great.

[ModernMech]

Apologies if this comes across as too "get off my lawn", but I come from a time when to look something up, you had to haul yourself to the library; open one of dozens of drawers filled with index cards; find the card your looking for, which directed you to a stack in the library; find the book on the stack; and finally find the page in the book by consulting an index. It's a lost art. Then, you would have to go to an actual person and engage with them in order to take the book home with you, giving you time-limited access to the information. That's if you're lucky enough that the book existed at your library. If it was checked out or had to be ordered, it might take weeks for you to get access to that information.

Many people today grew up with cellphones in their cribs. They have no idea what information starvation is like. The experience of receiving information you've been waiting for for weeks or months is exhilarating.

Anyway, when you take the library experience versus the experience of pulling up information from a cellphone the improvement is astronomical. From cellphone to voice assistant, the improvement seems very marginal.

Cell phones even represented a distinct advantage over desktops and laptops in that they were always there on your person. Cell phones opened up the possibility to look up information anywhere. With voice assistants it seems the only advantage you gain over cell phones in that you don't have to use your fingers. That doesn't seem very life changing by comparison, unless you don't have fingers, in which case I will admit your life would be vastly improved.

But the downside is that you're connecting a always-on microphone access to mega-corporations who are looking to monetize your existence. For those of us who grew up without the internet or cell phones the trade-off just makes zero sense. We're willing to use cell phones because they open up new worlds of information access. But voice assistants just seems to create more problems than they solve.

[jedberg]

I too grew up in the time of card catalogs. And I learned a lot from reading through the other encyclopedia entries as I flipped the pages looking for the page with the info.

Yes, you're right, the voice interface is not the astronomical leap that the cellphone was. But why is that your cutoff line?

My voice assistants offer a lot of benefit to me. Especially with kids, I don't always have a free hand to pull out the cell phone. When my daughter was an infant, it was super convenient to ask it to play soft music as she was falling asleep without having to put her down. Now it's super nice to be able to set multiple timers as I cook with just my voice, instead of trying to fumble with multiple timers on my phone or stove.

I'm not paranoid to think that they are recording everything, because I understand that there would be no ROI for the company to do so with the storage and bandwidth that would be required. And therefore there really isn't much tradeoff at all. Google is already recording every search I do -- does it matter if I use my phone or my Google Home?

[mrguyorama]

My personal experience is that simply typing my query into a search engine or pressing the spotify logo to start my music requires less effort or fuss than attempting to figure out how I'm supposed to word my desire for the benevolent overseer to do what I want.

IE, using voice commands is a downgrade IMO. Voice commands are not directly discoverable, and there's a lot more magic boxes.

[phinnaeus]

> attempting to figure out how I'm supposed to word my desire for the benevolent overseer to do what I want

I have yet to find a use case for modern voice control that required more than a passing thought about how to word things. Even my technologically illiterate parents can use these devices with relative ease, especially compared to smart phone and desktop computer UIs. Have you actually tried out these devices or are you just assuming they're as bad as they were 20 years ago?

[eropple]

I thought there'd be more problems with voice commands, but the Echo's not bad at it. I have to repeat maybe one thing a week, but "Echo, [room] lights on/off/dim to 50%" always works, as does "play X". I don't find myself having to structure a command in any particular way.

[perfmode]

I control my lights by saying “all lights red” and “dim all lights to 20%”

Compare this to the number of taps required to do so in the hue app

[dymk]

I recently found out about the iOS widget that the Hue app provides. It's basically a single swipe+tap for me now, even if my phone is locked.

[jethro_tell]

I do find using voice commands a downgrade when it comes to interaction speed. I find it incredibly annoying to talk to alexa as it doesn't seem to match my dialog speed. Then, I find myself standing their waiting for it to shut up thinking, 'I could have done this faster myself'

Also, an interaction I had last week:

add x to my shopping list.

ok, I will add x to my shopping list, anything else?

. . .

But I can't add a list, add pears, apples, and oatmeal to my shopping list.

So If I have raw chicken on my hands and want to add shit to my list, it takes so god damn long that I want to punch the fucking thing.

[programbreeding]

I don't have an echo but there was a post on HN[0] not long ago that linked to an article[1] about how Alexa is able to add multiple items to your shopping list at once, and how it understands what is what. So in theory you shouldn't be running in to the problem you're describing. Not every time at least.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18706651

[1] https://developer.amazon.com/blogs/alexa/post/36ca7d4c-cd98-...

[lancesells]

I'm an artist and paint most of the day. Having voice control of my lights and music and timers / alarms is a huge upgrade for me.

[fwip]

"hey Google, play some music"

[michaelmior]

I'm sort of on the boundary there. I didn't have a cell phone until I moved away from home for school. I had occasional access to dial up Internet as a kid, but I still remember plenty of afternoons spent at the library.

[saiya-jin]

Rarely do I need to answer a simplistic question in line with "what's the time now".

Its rather some deeper info that first few lines of wikipedia article covers, sometimes more. Is your use case valid? For sure for you. But it wouldn't be enough for me, not for the price, upfront and hidden, not for the creepiness it potentially brings. The real time and energy saved for me would be tiny - but that's me. I can still do a bit of 'work' myself.

This reminds me of my recent trip to Aconcagua, highest peak in South (both) America. One US lady had this electric air mattress inflater, and she ran off the charge. She was bragging how smart is she for having such appliances. Rest of the group just smiled and inflated our mattress ourselves, even in 6000m high camp. If you can't do 10 full lungs blows yourself and spend that 1 minute preparing mattress, you shouldn't be up there, by huge margin.

[vidarh]

I have four. I like being able to ask a question while I'm still typing away. I like being able to turn on my TV and change the volume without having to find a remote control that is always somehow somewhere it shouldn't be. I like being able to turn off every light in the house and the iron by just saying "alexa, turn off everything" as I head out the door. My son loves being able to turn off the lights in his room and start a playlist to help him go to sleep with "alexa, good night". I love being able to start any playlist from anywhere in the house without touching any buttons, or turning the lights on or off when my hands are full without putting things down. Or asking for the time. Or when the next bus leaves the nearest bus stop.

Any one of those things are just a tiny little convenience, but it adds up, and while I bought one just to see what they'd be like not expecting to use it that much, I now use them dozens of times a day.

[decebalus1]

I'm probably biased because I lived my early childhood behind the Iron Curtain but I can't for the life of me understand why someone would buy these. The cost-benefit is just not there.

[vectorEQ]

the cost is there :D just no benefits, like most 'products' today... i can't imagine 1 unit being sold to anyone but some addicted person who needs to have all-the-new-things regardless of their use.

[lallysingh]

Probably an overestimated cost.

[pwython]

I agree that your phone can delegate the same voice commands to your smart devices or do Q&A, but some of these devices are also decent speakers to stream music casually (eg. $75 Echo).

[JeremyBanks]

If you don't trust these devices, you probably wouldn't trust your phone either.

[pwython]

And I have a feeling many people who make a privacy case against Echo/Home forget that their phone does the same thing.

[kennywinker]

My phone is in my pocket, which signficantly degrades the audio quality of any recordings. Same reason I have a cover over my laptop camera, but not over my phone camera.

[JeremyBanks]

I've made several audio recordings with my phone in my pocket. Unless you're very consistent with the pocket and placement of your phone, that isn't a significant mitigation.

[jenscow]

In addition to knowing where you are, and potentially what sites you visit, who you communicate with, etc.

[mdpopescu]

Huh. I came to the opposite conclusion - growing up in Eastern Europe, "they're always listening" is the default position for me, so one more listening device is no big deal.

[decebalus1]

That's why I was never surprised by the Facebook 'revelations' and stuff. But that doesn't enable me to make their surveillance easier, tovarase!

[xrd]

Do you have kids? I have three small ones, and they are just starting to desire technology. From my perspective, letting them control music (which they want, and I want them to have) is much better using a Google Home device than giving them access to my phone or tablet.

If you don't have kids, you have no idea how loud and aggressively they will scream when they want something, and especially when these devices are visible to them (if you "need" to respond to a text message, etc).

Yes, it is a devil's bargain. Yes, I'm sure some families are able to, through sheer force of will, completely restrict access to technology. In my family, we are acknowledging we have lost the battle to prevent them from using technology and are seeking solutions that help them manage their desires and create healthy boundaries. I guess we can all argue over what is "healthy" and "normal."

Things like Google Home and Family Link (all from Google) do allow us to control access in a way that I prefer.

So, this "hack" is really exciting because I do care that my two year old already knows Google as a brand.

I'm open to hearing suggestions and have even attempted to build my own open source alternatives, but using voice is a modality that is preferable for so many reasons, and I don't see alternatives that won't be worse.

[frogpelt]

If your kids are screaming loudly and aggressively about things they want, you have a problem that technology will not solve.

[xrd]

No. You just have kids. The rest of what you said is incidental.

[WAthrowaway]

I have two kids, 9 and 11, and neither of them are screaming and yelling about what music to play. If they want to listen to music, they know to go to the rumpus room and pick out a vinyl.

[xrd]

I love that you provided your kids with a time machine to play with.

[yholio]

It's not a devil's bargain, you have lost the ability to bargain. It's a common theme with parents these days.

There is nothing magical about technology, it's just an application of age-old parenting principles. And there's nothing particularly harmful about technology either, there should be no grand battle: you define the limits and the children should stick to them and respect you as a parent. This is true for all things children want to do, from screaming and playing indoors to accessing communal devices to getting their own devices when you, as a parent determine they should.

[xrd]

You are wrong. With kids, you are dealing with micro bargaining every moment. It's what kids do to learn.

Do you have kids, or did you read this somewhere?

What age old parenting techniques are you talking about? The ones older people reminisce about when they lament how bad young people are today? Do you have a source backing up the efficacy of those "proven" techniques?

[glitchc]

An aggressive screaming kid needs a timeout at the very least, followed by a progressive loss of privileges (toys) until the tantrum subsides. A few cycles is enough to amend even the most recalcitrant.

I'm shocked: Why does your two year old need to know Google as a brand? How or why is this valuable to you? Do you expect Google to exist forever? Its entire revenue model is built on ads. Companies with more robust revenue streams have gone bankrupt in shorter timeframes.

[xrd]

Are you sure that gets what you want? Our desires for my kids might be different. Sounds like you think kids should be punished until they learn who is the boss. I'm not sure you have read all the literature on the effectiveness of that strategy.

I never said I want my two year old to know the Google brand. She hears her older siblings saying it. It is just what is so with her. But guess what? I'm willing to wager my kids aren't the only ones who learned things from their siblings that their parents don't want them to know about, at least at that moment. My kids are not playing with Barbies and I'm pretty sure body image issues with girls are much worse than exposure to Daniel Tiger.

[glitchc]

Sorry, my apologies. I misread your post read to mean that you were happy/excited to have your kid understand Google as a brand (i.e. valuable).

As for parenting, we may just agree to disagree. I concur with your assessment that siblings will definitely teach more than parents. That's to be expected. We just would never reward bad behaviour with acquiescence. But to each his own. Our seven-year old has wide latitude when it comes to choices and actions, but he also realizes that the consequences of those actions are not in his control. We gave him his own iPad at the age of 3 and access to his own real spending money in Grade 1. He gets to decide what to spend it on. At the same time, we've made it clear to him that poor impulse control and bad behaviour will never get him what he wants. He negotiates everything, including daily bedtime or routine tasks, and we're perfectly fine with that. It seems to align well with his personality, and builds some valuable life skills.

[xrd]

I actually think we agree on more than we disagree.

Totally align with not giving in to screaming and yelling, and I'm consistent (or at least aware) about that, but when my youngest is sick and just went down for a nap, well...

Those are good points you make and I'll hope to recall those techniques with my just turned six year old. As you say, building valuable life skills.

[melling]

Groundhog Day on Hacker News 2 years and running:

https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/groundhog-day-amazon...

No one cares if you don’t want to use it. No one needs to justify why they want to use one to you.

[i_am_proteus]

Some may see smart devices as part of a greater cultural movement, in which corporations entice individuals to trade privacy for convenience

Someone who thinks these things are a gimmick, and a harmful gimmick at that, is right to express an opinion about the value these devices add. The same way I'd encourage a friend to quit chain smoking tobacco cigarettes, and not visit his house with my family if it were full of secondhand smoke.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1807/

[melling]

So, you’d tell your chain smoking friend to quit smoking every time he lit a cigarette?

At some point, I would think he would say it’s none of your business.

[i_am_proteus]

Peer pressure is the main reason I quit smoking. So yes-- if not every time, then at least regularly and consistently. When technology starts to look like a recreational drug, treat it like a recreational drug.

[melling]

Perhaps you should write your concerns in a blog? Then you can post it every time. And I’ll post mine:

https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/groundhog-day-amazon...

This will create a lot less noise, which drowns out any meaningful discussion.

For instance, saying that I use a piece of technology because it’s like a recreational drug is not very convincing.

Addressing the line between having an always listening smartphone with a gps, would be a great place to start.

[glitchc]

Why is this downvoted? Peer pressure is by and large the best way to curb thoughts and actions that are harmful to individuals and society. The current echo chamber on the net filled with alternative/radical theories is the outcome of insufficient peer pressure. Nutbars always existed in real-life too, society was just better at keeping them from doing too much harm.

[mdpopescu]

Those of us who are nutbars hate society for forcing us to conform. Given that a lot of us are more tech-savvy than society, we love that we tend to be able to work around its restrictions.

Also, obligatory http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

[lukeschlather]

It's somewhat poignant that you say "adolescent" because I know a number of octogenarians and nonagenarians for whom these are indispensable. I won't buy one at this phase in my life, but there will come a point in most people's lives where having an omnipresent corporation listening in will become a net positive.

I would of course prefer dear friends listening in, but who knows what life will bring.

[cityofdelusion]

Never seen a single use case? How about a kitchen assistant, especially with dirty hands, or a task doer for the elderly or otherwise mobility disabled. It’s a generic time saver, and time=money for most people.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> I have never seen a legitimate use for it that wasn't misplaced adolescent tech fantasies

This seems a lot like "old man yells at cloud". The same could be said for personal computers 40 years ago.

[tjr225]

I mostly agree with you but there is a legitimate use.

Imagine if you couldn't use your hands or interact with technology due to a disability - these devices would make the world so much easier to interact with.

[Kiro]

I've seen this blind kid on YouTube who posts a lot of clips of him joyfully using Alexa. Obviously of great utility to him.

[glitcher]

Anyone who grew up watching Star Trek has probably dreamt at some point of being able to simply say "Computer" and then send a voice command. We just didn't expect the tech to become popularized by advertising/retail companies.

[creato]

My dad just had some major health issues, and has a much harder time getting around the house. He finds these things pretty useful to save him some trips around the house.

[WAthrowaway]

That is a good point, I had not considered that use case.

[frogpelt]

Honestly. I know that a lot of new technology is not quickly adopted by older people.

But do we really need technology to save us any more time? Are we really filling the empty time with worthwhile activities?

[Kiro]

I think it's great. Just because you cannot imagine the utility doesn't mean others can't.

[kingnothing]

Your smartphone is also always listening. What's the difference?

[lukifer]

For one, Amazon doesn't make smartphones, and I trust them the least.

In the iOS ecosystem, Siri can be set up to only listen in response to a button-press (don't remember which is default), and the watch only listens on wrist-raise. Those at least creates some physical barrier to passive listening, even if it requires a certain degree of trust in the devices.

[kelnos]

> In the iOS ecosystem, Siri can be set up to only listen in response to a button-press

Sure, that's assuming you trust Apple (if you don't, then you might imagine that those settings don't actually do what they say they do). If you trust them, then you're fine. If you're in Google's ecosystem, and you trust Google, then you're fine. Ditto for Amazon. But the point here is that people don't trust these entities.

And then somehow target a smart home speaker, while simultaneously carrying around an always-on, always-connected, geo-located, potential listening device in their pocket, all day long.

[WAthrowaway]

I don't use a smartphone

[ryanlol]

I don't know why GP specified "smartphone", there's nothing special about the new phones. A nokia 3310 could spy on you all the same.

In fact, the nokia 3310 would probably be even less secure than modern phones.

[postalrat]

Do you see legitimate uses for smartphones?

The way I see it is if you already own a smartphone then echo or home don't really add additional exposure.

[heroprotagonist]

I'm privacy conscious and bought a couple of minis. I don't use the mics but I thought I had a legitimate use case without one. It's falling short and I'm looking around for replacement devices.

I flipped the hardware mic switch off on it, to try to make it a dumb wifi speaker instead of a "smart" one. Then I built a software alarm clock that forces me to leave the room after I wake up in order to turn it off.

For me, it's very important for my alarm clock to be both effective, and to always work. The alarm clock runs as a remote task and connects directly to the mini, telling it to play an MP3 from the local network (by IP because the mini ignores DHCP DNS server). If I hit the mini touch controls to turn it off, the software starts playing a different MP3 a second later. If I try to unplug the cable from the device, duct tape stops me. Thoughtful wrapping of the cable around a solid furniture post prevents any yanking from being effective at tearing it out of the wall. If one mini is down (fairly rare but possible point of failure), the other one is attempted.

So, it's fairly impossible for me to just turn it off without waking up and giving it a bit more thought. I have to leave the room and tap a button on a touch screen (ubuntu in kiosk mode reaching web app on local network).

The unfortunately fatal flaw is that after months of effective use, I recently discovered that my highly available alarm clock was not actually highly available. It breaks when the internet is out. I could not connect over local network. There's always the possibility that something else was a factor, but I reproduced it a couple of times intentionally.

It also concerns me that the mini doesn't require authentication. Anyone on the local network can directly reach the device and do the same thing. A script meant as an alarm clock could turn into a device of psychological torment in someone elses hands. This lack of authentication, and the ability to auto-discover the speakers, is probably something they consider a 'feature'. I don't like seeing Chrome waste system resources in its attempt to scan my local network on the off chance that Google's speakers are there. And I don't want it to reach out to those speakers when it does find them. But it does it anyway.

In the end, with the microphone disregarded, it's a cheap wifi speaker. I won't count Chrome's bad behavior against it, but its software could be improved by offering (any) secure connection options. The lack of internet as a single point of failure dooms any kind of gadgetry with a reliability requirement from using it. It can't be considered reliable enough for serious tasks like waking you up for work or a flight unless they fix the software to work in a local-network-only mode. But, it is cheap, and, well, mostly available, which is often good enough for to-hand use cases.

Speculation: Is the lack of mini's heartbeat phoning home Google's own way of determining network reliability across wide geographic areas (eg, the lack of data in an aggregate area)? But they probably know this already from the wide spread of Android devices. Or do they maybe just not want their device to work unless it can reach back to them?