[fastball]

There is even someone in the twitter thread pointing out that Amazon uses the word "microphone" in their copy, as if that is some sort of "gotcha".

No, Amazon isn't trying to pretend the Echo doesn't have a microphone – they just think it's misleading to refer to a smart speaker as an "Amazon microphone", and I happen to agree.

[luckylion]

> smart speaker

That's pretty misleading as well. Speakers cannot listen, but the Echo can.

[Spivak]

Pedantic: Speakers can listen and basically any speaker can be wired up to also be a microphone.

[victords]

Microphones cannot speak, but the Echo can.

[AlexandrB]

In the context of the original article, the ability to "speak" is completely irrelevant since it's the privacy risks that are being highlighted. I think "microphone" is a perfectly fine way to capture the essence of the entire Alexa product line in this regard.

[andrewzah]

Actually all microphones can "speak". All speakers can be used as microphones as well. It's not like the conversion process only works one way.

[thebean11]

That's kind of a technicality, the vast majority of non-mic'd speakers don't have all the required hardware or software to save or transmit audio to anything.

[mrob]

>Actually all microphones can "speak".

Counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone

[c22]

Countercounterexample: https://www.livescience.com/64619-laser-sound-beam.html

[mrob]

That's a laser specifically designed for transmitting sound, not a laser microphone.

[fastball]

> smart

[josefx]

I thought that at some point smart meant self regulating, followed by TVs being "smart" by having apps and an always on network connection. Neither of these implied a microphone.

[fastball]

Everything I can think of which we've just slapped "smart" in front of in recent years is smart because it is more interactive / capable (in a technology centric way) than the corresponding "dumb" counterpart.

Smart speakers work great as dumb speakers and (generally) have the form factor you expect from dumb speakers. They are a lot more capable than the dumb ones due to a variety of additions, one of which is a microphone that allows it to respond to voice commands.

[leereeves]

Then let's call it a smart microphone.

[fastball]

No, because that is redundant. The microphone is part of what makes the device smart (interactive).

"Smart X" is a pretty widely used convention, where X is some not-very-interactive device which has some sort of interactive UX added to it in order to make it smart.

Many Smart TVs these days have microphones too. Should we call those "smart microphones" as well?

[leereeves]

Yes, we should call smart TVs "microphones", when they're listening to our conversations.

As for Echo, the microphone is the primary purpose of the device. Home automation and ordering by voice require a microphone, not a speaker. The Echo Dot even includes a line-out port to connect to external speakers, in which case it isn't acting as a speaker at all. It doesn't include a line-in port.

Speakers don't: answer questions, set alarms, turn on lights, adjust thermostats, lock doors, call almost anyone hands-free, drop in on other rooms in your home, make an announcement to every room. (all advertised features of the Echo)

So following the convention you mentioned, it's much more a smart microphone than a smart speaker.

[MacsHeadroom]

My home assistants replaced wifi speakers. I think that's the primary use case for most people.

The "smart" functionalites of being able to ask to set a timer or turn on my TV are just bonuses. They're speakers first and (smart) listeners second from a user standpoint.

[fastball]

First off – no, the microphone is not the primary purpose of the device. I can use my phone to control my smart speaker. The only thing that is always used whenever you interact with it is the computer chip, so based on your assertions we should probably call it a "smart computer".

Secondly, even if the microphone was always used, is your suggestion really that we should be using a different name for the device based on a particular person's use-case?

I use a Google Home (not an Echo) in order to play music and get information. I don't use it for home automation or ordering by voice. You can use in Echo in the same way (my sister does). So should I call my Google Home a "smart speaker" and anyone that uses their Google Home for mostly home automation call it a "smart microphone"? That doesn't seem just a bit confusing to you?

Teslas are electric cars. But some people use them for commuting and some use them for long-distance trips. Should we call Teslas "electric commuters" and "electric long-haulers" respectively?

[natcombs]

You can actually mute the “microphone” feature (which is an electric disconnect internally, someone on HN mentioned before), and just use the smart speaker capabilities through the app, for playing music & setting smart home routines.

So even those who don’t speak can use it

[davrosthedalek]

So the existence of a port to upgrade the output capability, in contrast to the microphone which can not be upgraded, seems to highlight the importance of the former, not the latter.