Facebook Delays Home-Speaker Unveil Amid Data Crisis(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Facebook Delays Home-Speaker Unveil Amid Data Crisis
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/facebook-is-said-to-delay-home-speaker-unveil-amid-data-crisis
163 comments
Similarly, I've started using Snips.ai in conjunction with Home Assistant, and I'm continuously overjoyed whenever I ask Snips to do anything, or I ask it for information, with the knowledge that everything is hosted on site, and everything is custom made specifically for what I want.
Hi! I'm the co-founder of https://snips.ai and we build a 100% on-device Voice AI platform.
The ASR and NLU are running on a Raspberry Pi 3, and best of all it is free and we are open-sourcing it, starting with the NLU https://github.com/snipsco/snips-nlu
https://medium.com/snips-ai/snips-nlu-is-an-open-source-priv...
The whole platform runs on-device which makes it ideal for privacy, cost, and to allow it to run when there is no network, from hotword to ASR and NLU
We are available in English, French, German, and soon Japanese and Korean, with more European languages coming!
Take a look at what some people have built with it: https://github.com/snipsco/awesome-snips
and a few tutorials to get you started: https://medium.com/snips-ai/building-a-voice-controlled-home...
https://medium.com/snips-ai/snips-nlu-is-an-open-source-priv...
The whole platform runs on-device which makes it ideal for privacy, cost, and to allow it to run when there is no network, from hotword to ASR and NLU
We are available in English, French, German, and soon Japanese and Korean, with more European languages coming!
Take a look at what some people have built with it: https://github.com/snipsco/awesome-snips
and a few tutorials to get you started: https://medium.com/snips-ai/building-a-voice-controlled-home...
Hi, can you roughly say how you guys plan to make money and how one can help you out? You guys tick a lot of boxes for me (rust, open source and privacy focused ML, europe...) so I want to help:)
Any recommendations for microphones, particularly in an environment with lots of flat surfaces (concrete/glass) and talkative people? Non-directional.
I picked up the respeaker 4 mic array https://www.seeedstudio.com/ReSpeaker-4-Mic-Array-for-Raspbe... which works GREAT and has awesome RGBs that I can address.
They've got a pretty in-depth article on their blog: https://medium.com/snips-ai/benchmarking-microphone-arrays-9...
This is probably a dumb question but is there a way to train snips.ai to recognize my home music server’s collection of artists/albums/songs/playlists?
I like Spotify but I’d also like to be able play my local music with voice commands.
I like Spotify but I’d also like to be able play my local music with voice commands.
I vaguely recall discussion in the discord about snips.ai support of training via API calls, so in that sense you should be able to do it. I don't know what the status of the API training is.
Hello there ! Please continue your work because im telling you, there is NO WAY I setup a corp cloud based voice listener.
Your's is the only way i'm doing it. Might use a small snips gear as next xmas gift(s) :)
That looks fantastic, thanks for pointing it out. I had been entertaining the idea of running my own STT server alongside mycroft to keep everything local ... snips.ai could be a much more simple solution.
Woah! snips.ai looks interesting. I might just fool around with this for a weekend project. thanks for the link!
Ohh that's exciting. I was excited about Snips when it came out for similar reasons but was really annoyed when they advertised custom trigger words so hard and then withheld it in the premium version.
On first glance, hmmm: why does this open source AI require that I create an account on their webpage before trying it out?
On first glance, hmmm: why does this open source AI require that I create an account on their webpage before trying it out?
https://github.com/MycroftAI/mycroft-core
> Mycroft AI, Inc. maintains a device and account management system known as Mycroft Home. Developers may sign up at: https://home.mycroft.ai
By default, mycroft-core is configured to use Home. By saying "Hey Mycroft, pair my device" (or any other request verbal request) you will be informed that your device needs to be paired. Mycroft will speak a 6-digit code which you can entered into the pairing page within the Mycroft Home site.
[...]
> If you do not wish to use the Mycroft Home service, you may insert your own API keys into the configuration files listed below in configuration.
> Mycroft AI, Inc. maintains a device and account management system known as Mycroft Home. Developers may sign up at: https://home.mycroft.ai
By default, mycroft-core is configured to use Home. By saying "Hey Mycroft, pair my device" (or any other request verbal request) you will be informed that your device needs to be paired. Mycroft will speak a 6-digit code which you can entered into the pairing page within the Mycroft Home site.
[...]
> If you do not wish to use the Mycroft Home service, you may insert your own API keys into the configuration files listed below in configuration.
> If you do not wish to use the Mycroft Home service, you may insert your own API keys into the configuration files listed below in configuration.
Bingo I'm in! Thanks a lot. This looks awesome.
Bingo I'm in! Thanks a lot. This looks awesome.
Hi, I'm a co-founder of Snips.ai
First, there is no premium version. The whole platform is free to use. Forever. And we are starting to open-source it.
For the trigger words, I think there is a slight confusion about what the are.
There are actually two kinds of trigger words:
- ones which are universal, and are very hard to train (it takes a lot of data and use NN models). Those are paid because we need to get the data (this is the only reason)
- ones which are much simpler and can be trained on your device. This will come in the next release of the platform!
Stay tuned for the next release where the personal hotword is coming!
First, there is no premium version. The whole platform is free to use. Forever. And we are starting to open-source it.
For the trigger words, I think there is a slight confusion about what the are.
There are actually two kinds of trigger words:
- ones which are universal, and are very hard to train (it takes a lot of data and use NN models). Those are paid because we need to get the data (this is the only reason)
- ones which are much simpler and can be trained on your device. This will come in the next release of the platform!
Stay tuned for the next release where the personal hotword is coming!
Thanks for the info. I was told "We currently provide custom hotwords only in our enterprise offer." so I just equated that to a premium version. Looking forward to seeing the simple device-only trained words. I have a local-only setup so cloud connections of any kind are deal-breakers for my personal use case.
You didn’t really answer the question of why one needs to create an account.
Because that particular question was not targeted at Snips, but at Mycroft.
Definitely seems directed at Snips if you read the parent and then the comment from Snips rep.
Oh this is really cool, makes me want to build one
Where does it process its speech and with what?
At https://snips.ai, we process all on the device, from the speech recognition to the NLU.
You can then use any language to create skills to make it perform actions.
Take a look at how to build a connected speaker with Snips: https://medium.com/snips-ai/building-a-voice-controlled-home...
You can then use any language to create skills to make it perform actions.
Take a look at how to build a connected speaker with Snips: https://medium.com/snips-ai/building-a-voice-controlled-home...
I’ve only played around with mycroft a bit, but I’m pretty sure the language processing occurs via cloud (home.mycroft.ai). As it’s open source, you can plug it into a local STT if you want to. The Snips.ai platform seems like it was designed for keeping everything local out-of-the-box, which is why I’m going to try it out this afternoon! After all, I really only want it to understand a handful of commands, mainly around audio and lights.
There's some info here: https://mycroft.ai/documentation/mycroft-software-hardware/
Looks like it can all be done offline + OSS except for Speech-To-Text. But I think the key idea is even if it's using cloud for processing, you can at least trust it isn't listening when it shouldn't be (as long as always-on, wake word detection is offline).
Looks like it can all be done offline + OSS except for Speech-To-Text. But I think the key idea is even if it's using cloud for processing, you can at least trust it isn't listening when it shouldn't be (as long as always-on, wake word detection is offline).
Speech to text is precisely the most sensitive thing to protect. There is simply no way to offer real Privacy when processing voice in the cloud.
> I may link it up with Home Asssistant
Which one? And why would you not consider Facebook's speaker but are apparently using somebody else's same product.
Which one? And why would you not consider Facebook's speaker but are apparently using somebody else's same product.
Home Assistant is an open source home automation tool, not a voice assistant. It's very good, I've been using it since early days. They also place a big emphasis on privacy and local control.
https://www.home-assistant.io/
https://www.home-assistant.io/
It's extremely good. I've been using it for a few years now in multiple locations and it's really incredibly powerful. Turn an old boiler into a smart furnace with a $5 MCU and a relay? Done. Full security system with email notifications containing snapshots from your webcam? Done. Turn old IR remote control into a full-house controller with a $1 IR receiver? Done. Man I love home-assistant.
Do you have any tutorials, docs, code or anywhere you can send me for helpful tips on doing this with an IR remote/receiver? I want to automate a garage door and a gate because I accidentally leave them open all the time and they aren’t easy to see from the house so it would be nice to have a notification or state manager on my phone.
There's a lot to learn if you're starting with electronics and automation from scratch, but you can start with the Adafruit tutorial on IR:
https://learn.adafruit.com/using-an-infrared-library/hardwar...
I do something similar, I have an ESP8266 microcontroller hooked up to an IR sender/receiver that I can use to send and receive codes from Home Assistant to control some stuff. The module I use takes care of encoding and decoding the IR and simply dumps it to serial, which the micro reads and forwards to Home Assistant via MQTT (and vice versa). It's this one
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5V-IR-Infrared-Remote-Decode...
but it's not hard to do it with a bare IR emitter and receiver. Unfortunately I haven't had have much time lately to document many of my projects for other people, but you can learn a lot from Youtube and Google these days.
https://learn.adafruit.com/using-an-infrared-library/hardwar...
I do something similar, I have an ESP8266 microcontroller hooked up to an IR sender/receiver that I can use to send and receive codes from Home Assistant to control some stuff. The module I use takes care of encoding and decoding the IR and simply dumps it to serial, which the micro reads and forwards to Home Assistant via MQTT (and vice versa). It's this one
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5V-IR-Infrared-Remote-Decode...
but it's not hard to do it with a bare IR emitter and receiver. Unfortunately I haven't had have much time lately to document many of my projects for other people, but you can learn a lot from Youtube and Google these days.
Here's a blog post where the original LIRC component in Home Assistant was developed along with some info about how to use it [1]. In here an A/C unit, a TV, and a stereo are all controlled with one little IR LED.
With a little z-wave door sensor (just a magnetic reed switch), you could have Home Assistant run an automation that says "If gate is open at 9:30am, close it." so then you don't even have to log in to click it.
[1] https://partofthething.com/thoughts/adding-a-ir-send-and-rec...
With a little z-wave door sensor (just a magnetic reed switch), you could have Home Assistant run an automation that says "If gate is open at 9:30am, close it." so then you don't even have to log in to click it.
[1] https://partofthething.com/thoughts/adding-a-ir-send-and-rec...
Here's my garage door project, that I've integrated into Home Assistant: https://github.com/craftyguy/esp-garage
I use an ultrasonic sensor to detect when the door is open or closed. It's very reliable.
I even wired up Home Assistant to contact me (over sms by sending an email to my number@carrier) if the door has been open for >5 minutes, because I was precisely in your position of forgetting to close it.
I use an ultrasonic sensor to detect when the door is open or closed. It's very reliable.
I even wired up Home Assistant to contact me (over sms by sending an email to my number@carrier) if the door has been open for >5 minutes, because I was precisely in your position of forgetting to close it.
Can your garage door close itself anyway?
Some have a setting to close a few minutes after being opened. Might be simplest.
Some have a setting to close a few minutes after being opened. Might be simplest.
> Full security system with email notifications containing snapshots from your webcam?
I've been wanting to add this to my setup. Do you have any more details on what you have done? My main hurdles would be choosing decent cameras that can be used by Home Assistant... Cameras that don't want to phone home all the damn time.
I've been wanting to add this to my setup. Do you have any more details on what you have done? My main hurdles would be choosing decent cameras that can be used by Home Assistant... Cameras that don't want to phone home all the damn time.
An initial setup (on an older version of HASS) is shown here [1]. That has the basics. I've had good luck with Amcrest cameras actually, which even have a component in HASS [2]. They never phone home (check default settings though, I think they want to at first) and I access the whole thing through a OpenWRT-hosted OpenVPN server hosted on my router(s). I also really want to make sure nothing phones home ever. You can set router-level firewall rules to block WAN access if need be.
[1] https://partofthething.com/thoughts/raspberry-pi-home-assist...
[2] https://www.home-assistant.io/components/camera.amcrest/
[1] https://partofthething.com/thoughts/raspberry-pi-home-assist...
[2] https://www.home-assistant.io/components/camera.amcrest/
Making one with a Pi Zero W + the camera is pretty straightforward. Most of the good network cameras with simple APIs (RTSP or MJPEG) are not so trustworthy on the security side.
> + the camera
What camera?! Seriously though, I don't necessarily want to write device drivers for a camera, maybe it's time I start looking at usb webcams to use?
What camera?! Seriously though, I don't necessarily want to write device drivers for a camera, maybe it's time I start looking at usb webcams to use?
There's an "official" raspberry pi camera module with mature libraries already written, and I believe it comes in both a regular IR and a No-IR version for night-ish vision.
There are also a ton of different 3D-printable mounts and jigs for them on sites like thingiverse and instructables.
My favorite[1] comes as a kit with the jig, 3 servo motors, and an add-on board for a raspi. Using this I have a live-feed camera that can rotate up to 180 degress on 3 axis that I can control from anywhere in the world using my phone as long as my internet connection is up at home. All hosted locally, even the live feed frontend. It's not hard to build or set up either, took me a lazy day and I'm far from a good coder.
1: https://shop.pimoroni.com/collections/raspberry-pi/products/...
There are also a ton of different 3D-printable mounts and jigs for them on sites like thingiverse and instructables.
My favorite[1] comes as a kit with the jig, 3 servo motors, and an add-on board for a raspi. Using this I have a live-feed camera that can rotate up to 180 degress on 3 axis that I can control from anywhere in the world using my phone as long as my internet connection is up at home. All hosted locally, even the live feed frontend. It's not hard to build or set up either, took me a lazy day and I'm far from a good coder.
1: https://shop.pimoroni.com/collections/raspberry-pi/products/...
(i'm past the time in which I can edit my original post)
I remembered incorrectly, that PiMoroni kit does not include the 3 servo motors, you need to buy those separately along with the RPi camera module. Luckily the servos required are super common little blue servos that are all over eBay and such for dirt cheap.
I remembered incorrectly, that PiMoroni kit does not include the 3 servo motors, you need to buy those separately along with the RPi camera module. Luckily the servos required are super common little blue servos that are all over eBay and such for dirt cheap.
Mildly off-topic, but what’s your method for accessing your LAN remotely? Openvpn? I want to eventually get a secure way to remote in ...
OpenVPN yes. I have my router hosting the openvpn, but I think you could do that on the RPi as well. I can't say for _sure_, as I haven't tried it personally, but I think there's more than enough juice on an RPi to host all of that, especially if it's only ever going to handle 1 or 2 simultaneous connections.
Thanks, I have a synology router that has that option as well ... putting it on my list of things to do!
reflash the $20 WYZE cameras with https://openip.cam/ and then capture the RTSP stream.
well that's a cool project that I didn't know about.. thanks!
User beware Mycroft Canner tho
Buying a facebook speaker, or really any home-speaker for that matter seems like a really bad idea. You give it the ability to record everything in your home for a slight utility.
I see this argument all the time, but these things are less dangerous than smartphones. First off, they ride off your own network so it is easy to see when they are sending data back home unlike phones which can transfer data over harder to monitor 3rd party networks. They are cheaper and lower powered machines so they can't do a lot of processing on device and can't store a large amount of data for later transfer. They are stationary in your home and therefore likely spend a majority of the time listening to nothing unlike phones which might be at their owners side 24/7. They also only have one source of data which is audio as opposed to the other various sensors phones have like GPS. Finally, if you believe that these companies are shady enough that they are lying to their customers about what these smart speakers are doing, why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing?
All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook.
All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook.
> these things are less dangerous than smartphones
I disagree.
> they ride off your own network so it is easy to see when they are sending data back home unlike phones which can transfer data over harder to monitor 3rd party networks
…if you use a VPN, then you can check for traffic here as well.
> They are cheaper and lower powered machines so they can't do a lot of processing on device and can't store a large amount of data for later transfer.
HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered.
> They are stationary in your home and therefore likely spend a majority of the time listening to nothing
I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything.
> Finally, if you believe that these companies are shady enough that they are lying to their customers about what these smart speakers are doing, why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing
Some of them, maybe.
I disagree.
> they ride off your own network so it is easy to see when they are sending data back home unlike phones which can transfer data over harder to monitor 3rd party networks
…if you use a VPN, then you can check for traffic here as well.
> They are cheaper and lower powered machines so they can't do a lot of processing on device and can't store a large amount of data for later transfer.
HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered.
> They are stationary in your home and therefore likely spend a majority of the time listening to nothing
I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything.
> Finally, if you believe that these companies are shady enough that they are lying to their customers about what these smart speakers are doing, why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing
Some of them, maybe.
You start off with disagreeing that smartphones are more dangerous as home speakers, then every single subsequent point you make is along the line as "this may not be as bad as smartphones but they're still an issue".
Yes the processor is still strong but it's weaker than smartphones. Yes you can still sneak data past home networks but it's harder than 3rd party networks. Yes they can be more overlooked, but they still have access to less data than smartphones.
None of the points you make prove that home speakers are as bad or worse than smartphones. The original comment wasn't arguing that smart speakers are safe, they were just pointing out the hypocrisy over owning a smartphone and being against smart speakers.
Yes the processor is still strong but it's weaker than smartphones. Yes you can still sneak data past home networks but it's harder than 3rd party networks. Yes they can be more overlooked, but they still have access to less data than smartphones.
None of the points you make prove that home speakers are as bad or worse than smartphones. The original comment wasn't arguing that smart speakers are safe, they were just pointing out the hypocrisy over owning a smartphone and being against smart speakers.
The main issue with smart speakers is that they're in your home and they have access to continuous power, so they're always on. Sure, they might not have all of the processing power of your flagship smartphone, and you can check their traffic, but this doesn't mean that they aren't less dangerous. With smartphones, you can tell pretty quickly if someone's been recording audio in the background: just check to see if your battery is depleting quickly. Smart speakers also have better range than smartphones: they're meant to pick up noise from far away.
> The main issue with smart speakers
And? Your phone is with you 24/7
> they have access to continuous power
I don't know about you but my phone hasn't run out of power in months.
> this doesn't mean that they aren't less dangerous
No one is saying that they aren't dangerous, you're missing the point. What I'm saying is if you carry a smartphone around, that's just as risky. Therefore, it's hypocritical to warn against smart homes unless you also don't have a smartphone.
> Smart speakers also have better range than smartphones
But smartphones are literally next to you at all time, they don't need better microphones.
And? Your phone is with you 24/7
> they have access to continuous power
I don't know about you but my phone hasn't run out of power in months.
> this doesn't mean that they aren't less dangerous
No one is saying that they aren't dangerous, you're missing the point. What I'm saying is if you carry a smartphone around, that's just as risky. Therefore, it's hypocritical to warn against smart homes unless you also don't have a smartphone.
> Smart speakers also have better range than smartphones
But smartphones are literally next to you at all time, they don't need better microphones.
> Therefore, it's hypocritical to warn against smart homes unless you also don't have a smartphone.
It's not hypocrisy to warn of dangers, regardless of being exposed in other ways. Also, your comment here equates 'smart speakers' with 'smart homes', which are not the same thing (yet).
This conversation can only progress when you consider the actual threat models (like security folks talk about). It seem strange to me to rant about the risks of smartphones vs smart home devices, when the data from both of those is potentially ending up with the same small set of companies.
It's not hypocrisy to warn of dangers, regardless of being exposed in other ways. Also, your comment here equates 'smart speakers' with 'smart homes', which are not the same thing (yet).
This conversation can only progress when you consider the actual threat models (like security folks talk about). It seem strange to me to rant about the risks of smartphones vs smart home devices, when the data from both of those is potentially ending up with the same small set of companies.
> I don't know about you but my phone hasn't run out of power in months.
I don't understand your argument here. If your smart speaker 100% maxed out its CPU and sensors for a month, would you notice? Probably not. I guarantee you would if your smartphone did, though, unless you keep it constantly plugged in.
> But smartphones are literally next to you at all time, they don't need better microphones.
I'll chalk this one up to individual preference. Personally, my phone is usually not near me at home (e.g. downstairs) since I have access to my computer, which I prefer using instead.
I don't understand your argument here. If your smart speaker 100% maxed out its CPU and sensors for a month, would you notice? Probably not. I guarantee you would if your smartphone did, though, unless you keep it constantly plugged in.
> But smartphones are literally next to you at all time, they don't need better microphones.
I'll chalk this one up to individual preference. Personally, my phone is usually not near me at home (e.g. downstairs) since I have access to my computer, which I prefer using instead.
Since most people buy phones in 20 packs, and change devices between each charge, this is a non-issue, no?
>…if you use a VPN, then you can check for traffic here as well.
This is conditional on the assumption that the device is doing what it tells you it is doing. Like the point in my previous comment, if you believe the device is lying to you about when it is recording, why do you trust that it isn't hiding non-VPNed connections from you? Smart speakers can not physically transfer data themselves and can only forward data over WiFi or Bluetooth.
>HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered.
The A8 is a 4 year old processor and the HomePod is by far the most expensive and powerful of these devices. Maybe I was downplaying their potential processing power too much, but the fact still stands that a modern smartphone is much more powerful than a modern smart speaker.
>I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything.
And phones aren't overlooked when they spend almost 24/7 within a few feet of the owner?
I am not saying these devices don't present any potential issues. I am just pointing out that the risk is lower than the one we have already accepted by using smartphones. Stressing over compromised smart speakers is like stressing about whether you locked the door to the third floor balcony while not caring that the front door is unlocked.
This is conditional on the assumption that the device is doing what it tells you it is doing. Like the point in my previous comment, if you believe the device is lying to you about when it is recording, why do you trust that it isn't hiding non-VPNed connections from you? Smart speakers can not physically transfer data themselves and can only forward data over WiFi or Bluetooth.
>HomePod has an Apple A8 processor, and Google Home has some sort of ARM SoC. These aren't low-powered machines; on the contrary, they can run 24/7 since they're always powered.
The A8 is a 4 year old processor and the HomePod is by far the most expensive and powerful of these devices. Maybe I was downplaying their potential processing power too much, but the fact still stands that a modern smartphone is much more powerful than a modern smart speaker.
>I think this makes them more likely to be overlooked, more than anything.
And phones aren't overlooked when they spend almost 24/7 within a few feet of the owner?
I am not saying these devices don't present any potential issues. I am just pointing out that the risk is lower than the one we have already accepted by using smartphones. Stressing over compromised smart speakers is like stressing about whether you locked the door to the third floor balcony while not caring that the front door is unlocked.
> why do you trust that it isn't hiding non-VPNed connections from you
Ahh, so you don't trust the operating system itself, rather than the apps running on it. In this case, you're free to physically turn off cellular data on your phone (e.g. by removing the SIM) and connect it to Wi-Fi.
> The A8 is a 4 year old processor and the HomePod is by far the most expensive and powerful of these devices. Maybe I was downplaying their potential processing power too much, but the fact still stands that a modern smartphone is much more powerful than a modern smart speaker.
Sure, but you don't need a whole lot of processor power. What you need is a reliable power source, which is something that a smart speaker has.
> And phones aren't overlooked when they spend almost 24/7 within a few feet of the owner
While smart speakers don't have to even be within a few feet of the owner to work.
Ahh, so you don't trust the operating system itself, rather than the apps running on it. In this case, you're free to physically turn off cellular data on your phone (e.g. by removing the SIM) and connect it to Wi-Fi.
> The A8 is a 4 year old processor and the HomePod is by far the most expensive and powerful of these devices. Maybe I was downplaying their potential processing power too much, but the fact still stands that a modern smartphone is much more powerful than a modern smart speaker.
Sure, but you don't need a whole lot of processor power. What you need is a reliable power source, which is something that a smart speaker has.
> And phones aren't overlooked when they spend almost 24/7 within a few feet of the owner
While smart speakers don't have to even be within a few feet of the owner to work.
>Ahh, so you don't trust the operating system itself, rather than the apps running on it.
The argument against any of these devices is that they are compromised either by a third party or by the actual device maker. Google and Apple make the OSes installed on almost every mobile device. If you don't trust Google's or Apple's smart speaker why do you trust their OS?
>In this case, you're free to physically turn off cellular data on your phone (e.g. by removing the SIM) and connect it to Wi-Fi.
That isn't a valid solution became it is hindering a device in such a way that it can't perform its most basic duty. Real people don't put a SIM into their phone only when they are expecting a call and take it out as soon as the call is over.
>Sure, but you don't need a whole lot of processor power. What you need is a reliable power source, which is something that a smart speaker has.
What do you think the average smartphone uptime is per day? I am willing to bet it is approaching 24/7. A majority of phones probably are hooked up to chargers a couple hours a day and they all have access to the battery any time they aren't/
>While smart speakers don't have to even be within a few feet of the owner to work.
And neither do phones. The range of smart speaker microphones is likely within an order of magnitude of the range of smartphone speakers but the average distance between a smart speaker and its owner is going to be several orders of magnitude higher than the average distance between a smartphone and its owner.
The argument against any of these devices is that they are compromised either by a third party or by the actual device maker. Google and Apple make the OSes installed on almost every mobile device. If you don't trust Google's or Apple's smart speaker why do you trust their OS?
>In this case, you're free to physically turn off cellular data on your phone (e.g. by removing the SIM) and connect it to Wi-Fi.
That isn't a valid solution became it is hindering a device in such a way that it can't perform its most basic duty. Real people don't put a SIM into their phone only when they are expecting a call and take it out as soon as the call is over.
>Sure, but you don't need a whole lot of processor power. What you need is a reliable power source, which is something that a smart speaker has.
What do you think the average smartphone uptime is per day? I am willing to bet it is approaching 24/7. A majority of phones probably are hooked up to chargers a couple hours a day and they all have access to the battery any time they aren't/
>While smart speakers don't have to even be within a few feet of the owner to work.
And neither do phones. The range of smart speaker microphones is likely within an order of magnitude of the range of smartphone speakers but the average distance between a smart speaker and its owner is going to be several orders of magnitude higher than the average distance between a smartphone and its owner.
> That isn't a valid solution became it is hindering a device in such a way that it can't perform its most basic duty.
This isn't intended as a permanent thing: it's just a spot check on the traffic.
> A majority of phones probably are hooked up to chargers a couple hours a day and they all have access to the battery any time they aren't
The issue here is that any sort of processing is very noticeable on smartphones, since it will either cause the battery to deplete very quickly or charging to take a long time. It's basically impossible to get away with performing computation without it showing up in battery statistics.
This isn't intended as a permanent thing: it's just a spot check on the traffic.
> A majority of phones probably are hooked up to chargers a couple hours a day and they all have access to the battery any time they aren't
The issue here is that any sort of processing is very noticeable on smartphones, since it will either cause the battery to deplete very quickly or charging to take a long time. It's basically impossible to get away with performing computation without it showing up in battery statistics.
I would suspect that small cpu inside them is better at real time voice processing than you think.
Smartphone radios use quite a bit of energy. So, they can't be used to record 24/7 without the drain becoming really obvious.
These things send back full audio to be processed by design. So, it's not a question of possible it's up to the provider what they want to do with the recordings the device is directly sending.
These things send back full audio to be processed by design. So, it's not a question of possible it's up to the provider what they want to do with the recordings the device is directly sending.
The fundamental difference is that a smartphone will record and send the data remotely only when you have applications or malware to that effect. So you still have nominal control.
Smart speakers are sending the audio to the mothership by design, it's the way they work in normal operation.
Smart speakers are sending the audio to the mothership by design, it's the way they work in normal operation.
[deleted]
> these things are less dangerous than smartphones
They're also orthogonal to smartphones.
> why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing?
Why do you think everybody thinks that? And why frame it that way from the get go, to what the companies themselves are doing today, and/or to what the widgets do in isolation? It's another vector of attack for all sorts of actors, present and future, including the companies themselves.
> All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook.
They're not the baseline, the baseline is none of these devices. And for me, those all have worlds less trust than entities I trust, and the difference between them and Facebook is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture.
They're also orthogonal to smartphones.
> why do you think they aren't lying about what their mobile OSes or apps are doing?
Why do you think everybody thinks that? And why frame it that way from the get go, to what the companies themselves are doing today, and/or to what the widgets do in isolation? It's another vector of attack for all sorts of actors, present and future, including the companies themselves.
> All that said, I believe Apple, Amazon, and Google all have worlds more trust in this area than Facebook.
They're not the baseline, the baseline is none of these devices. And for me, those all have worlds less trust than entities I trust, and the difference between them and Facebook is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture.
Thank you, sometimes I feel like I’m nuts for seeing all these people run to install always on mics in their house.
I don’t like the 1 second of buffer the iPhone has for Siri with Hey Siri disabled - but LOL if I’m going to install a single purpose always listening microphone for gimmick reasons.
I don’t like the 1 second of buffer the iPhone has for Siri with Hey Siri disabled - but LOL if I’m going to install a single purpose always listening microphone for gimmick reasons.
I'm definitely more worried about a FB speaker than an Apple, Amazon, or Google one. In that specific order.
Agree, Apple had the least incentive to monetize your data. Amazon will use your data to sell stuff, but they probably not going to share that to others. Google and FB are all advertising companies that they relies on reselling your data for targeting, with FB being the more aggressive one for you know, growth.
Neither FB nor Google "resell" your data. They use your data to put you into categories. Advertisers choose which categories to advertise to, and if your data puts you into one of those chosen categories then you're shown the ad.
You will be amazed how flexible they allow advertiser to specify the criteria, and how easy that with a handful filters they can target as niche as tens of people in the same area as a cohort.
I'd suggest you turn of all the personalization ads option they provided so that you can avoid to be precisely targeted
I'd suggest you turn of all the personalization ads option they provided so that you can avoid to be precisely targeted
How does that jive with the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal? Facebook seems pretty clearly in the reseller category.
That doesn't make sense. By your reasoning, Google is reselling your location data by allowing Android apps to access it after getting your permission.
3+ years ago, their Graph API provided much more information than it does today. App developers (CA, in this case) used that open API to get information about the app user's friends, and then stored that data on their own servers (which is and always was against Facebook's Terms of Service).
>>>(which is and always was against Facebook's Terms of Service)
Nobody reads TOS.
Car analogy: leaving you car in a bad neighborhood, unlocked, key in the ignition, door open, with a "do not steal or we will send you a threatening letter demanding our car back" note.
Nobody reads TOS.
Car analogy: leaving you car in a bad neighborhood, unlocked, key in the ignition, door open, with a "do not steal or we will send you a threatening letter demanding our car back" note.
To the GP's point, the fact that Facebook has stated recently that it will reduce the information provided to third party apps shows that there was still a bigger leak than it cared to admit all along.
Hrm, okay. I'll follow it, but it feels like a "don't ask, don't tell" thing at the moment. Where FB reaped benefits while pretending to be vigilant.
I'm not defending what happened, I'm just encouraging people to get their facts straight.
Apple makes it pretty clear that they don't use the data that hits a server to identify you:
> When we do send information to a server, we protect your privacy by using anonymized rotating identifiers so that searches and locations can’t be traced to you personally.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
> When we do send information to a server, we protect your privacy by using anonymized rotating identifiers so that searches and locations can’t be traced to you personally.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
A much more nuanced and detailed explanation of what I was trying to share. Thanks for that. Wordsmithing isn't my strong suit. Your wording is exactly my sentiment, and better stated.
That's the right order though I am not sure about the last two. I once listened to a Microsoft exec give a talk on privacy issues regarding Bing, etc. He admitted that for privacy conscious folks Apple was best followed by MS, followed by Google, then FB. He described how there were intense fights within Microsoft regarding whether they should show targeted ads based on email content on Hotmail and the side that wanted to show targeted ads lost out. A large part of the reason was that even though it was a free service, any hint that MS was contemplating going through emails could mean a backlash from giant corporate customers using MS's email products. For Apple, leveraging data has never been a major aim. They do as much as possible locally unlike Google/Amazon which do as much as possible on the cloud. Again, differing cultures of companies born in different eras.
People who use these seem completely oblivious to the fact that you're wiring your home. The important part is these things are always on, always recording, and often sending data back home. You can't monitor all of that, and your phone doesn't do that. Stop with the disingenuous phone argument.
I'll wager with you that if we randomly stopped individuals on the street with Android phones we'd be able to find a significant portion of individuals who have "Ok Google" enabled. (I'll concede that this piece of functionality can be disabled.) That said, I'll also wager that for those with the "Ok Google" functionality disabled that at least one application on their phone has the microphone permission enabled. I'll even wager that if you own an Android phone you have at least one application with the microphone permission enabled.
Additionally, I can disable the microphone on my home device if I wish with the push of a button. If I'm in public I can't walk around asking every stranger within earshot to "disable their phone's microphone".
Now, explain to me, in the case where "Ok Google" is enabled; how isn't the phone always recording if "Ok Google" works (or "Hey Siri" for that matter)?
Given everything covered, is it still "disingenuous" to say that a cell phone is minimally as risky as putting any of the devices mentioned in a home if not more due to the inability to control the devices of others?
Additionally, I can disable the microphone on my home device if I wish with the push of a button. If I'm in public I can't walk around asking every stranger within earshot to "disable their phone's microphone".
Now, explain to me, in the case where "Ok Google" is enabled; how isn't the phone always recording if "Ok Google" works (or "Hey Siri" for that matter)?
Given everything covered, is it still "disingenuous" to say that a cell phone is minimally as risky as putting any of the devices mentioned in a home if not more due to the inability to control the devices of others?
For those who are disabled, the prevalence of these devices can be life changing.
All the more reason we should get behind open source, run-your-own voice assistants. We shouldn’t have to trade off privacy for accessibility!
Sure. Let's even leave aside the whole corpus of data you need to make a even remotely useful voice assistant.
But if you think there will be people willing to self host and maintain a whole voice assistant service, you're off your rocker.
It's just like saying "Why doesn't everyone just use Tor and PGP?" Because it's an enormous pain in the ass and really only accessible to technical users.
But if you think there will be people willing to self host and maintain a whole voice assistant service, you're off your rocker.
It's just like saying "Why doesn't everyone just use Tor and PGP?" Because it's an enormous pain in the ass and really only accessible to technical users.
I think you shouldn’t rush to judge the utility; consider that other people might find uses for a voice assistant that doesn’t require “a vast corpus of data” to function.
But moreover, if you need to call me “off my rocker,” you’re not engaging in good faith.
But moreover, if you need to call me “off my rocker,” you’re not engaging in good faith.
> But if you think there will be people willing to self host and maintain a whole voice assistant service, you're off your rocker.
There were probably people who said that about open source operating systems, once upon a time.
Extremely complicated software is packaged down to an installer and installed by non-expert users all the time.
There were probably people who said that about open source operating systems, once upon a time.
Extremely complicated software is packaged down to an installer and installed by non-expert users all the time.
And that’s why you use Common Voice and Deep Speech from Mozilla.
https://research.mozilla.org/machine-learning/
https://research.mozilla.org/machine-learning/
Assuming you already haven't given them that kind of permission through some smartphone app anyway.
I can only imagine the SNL fake commercials for this. People are already half-convinced that Facebook is listening through the existing app; every couple of weeks I see friends posting weird coincidences between real-life conversations and Facebook ads.
Nothing sounds more invasive than a Facebook created in-home, always-on device.
Don't forget they tried making a phone not-too-long ago, and it flopped for probably the same reason
I thought the Fire phone failed on its own merits.
Fire phone = Amazon
Facebook was called Home. And it had some nonsense gimmick with a Facebook-like Android skin for the OS.
But, yes it failed on its own merits when the consumer market took one look and laughed it off.
edit: I remembered wrong. Home was the name of their Android skin. HTC and Samsung launched a few phones running it by default, which all flopped.
Facebook was called Home. And it had some nonsense gimmick with a Facebook-like Android skin for the OS.
But, yes it failed on its own merits when the consumer market took one look and laughed it off.
edit: I remembered wrong. Home was the name of their Android skin. HTC and Samsung launched a few phones running it by default, which all flopped.
That's exactly what the Facebook app is on a mobile phone, though. Has access to the microphone to listen whenever it wants (even if it doesn't do it, it has access). Is always on, not just in your home but everywhere you go. Knows who you talk to and where you are and how long you spend there and often what you're doing quite exactly to the details.
There's not much difference between having the Facebook app installed on your phone and this device, in terms of creepiness and data collection capability. Probably their smartphone app creeps me out more, actually.
There's not much difference between having the Facebook app installed on your phone and this device, in terms of creepiness and data collection capability. Probably their smartphone app creeps me out more, actually.
in which condition does Facebook asks for microphone access ?
On my install Facebook has zero permissions and remains useable. It is by design though.. they have already way too much data.
IIRC in P only a foreground app can access sensors, still, don't give this permission to facebook.
On my install Facebook has zero permissions and remains useable. It is by design though.. they have already way too much data.
IIRC in P only a foreground app can access sensors, still, don't give this permission to facebook.
Yeah, that's why I just use the mobile website. Does everything I want without giving it wide-ranging permissions to my phone and data
Tomorrow: Uber will announce the delay of their new airline.
https://www.uber.com/info/elevate/
Not a joke...
Not a joke...
Plane-sharing service with student pilots.
Don't they already offer that in some markets? or at least helicopter rides?
IIRC, aircraft piloted by students can only get "gas money" out of any passenger(s), so there is little money making potential.
If Uber were to enter into this market, they'd probably also offer a 'refueling service' with 400% markup.
Sure, every regulator would bark, but that's kind of exactly how Uber did it for ridesharing!
Sure, every regulator would bark, but that's kind of exactly how Uber did it for ridesharing!
Lol at the idea of using minimally qualified pilots to fly people around at wages that barely incent them to continue. It might even happen.
People flying around with probably alcoholic tendencies, overly adventurous ideas, spraying toxic insectesides, or otherwise borderline pilots because "gig economy". You're probably right.
People flying around with probably alcoholic tendencies, overly adventurous ideas, spraying toxic insectesides, or otherwise borderline pilots because "gig economy". You're probably right.
From what I understand, that's basically how the airline business works.
It's just that "minimally qualified pilots" are still quite highly trained. But the pay for new entrants is quite low relative to the responsibility.
It's just that "minimally qualified pilots" are still quite highly trained. But the pay for new entrants is quite low relative to the responsibility.
It would never happen because FAA. Taxis on the other hand are regulated on a state by state and even town by town basis.
Anyway, not much blood to squeeze out of that stone. A 747 fits about 400 passengers and only needs 2 pilots. Doubling or halving the pilot salary will not make a noticable difference in ticket prices.
I'm not sure what the main costs of air travel are, but unlike taxis, it ain't the drivers. I would guess fuel?
Anyway, not much blood to squeeze out of that stone. A 747 fits about 400 passengers and only needs 2 pilots. Doubling or halving the pilot salary will not make a noticable difference in ticket prices.
I'm not sure what the main costs of air travel are, but unlike taxis, it ain't the drivers. I would guess fuel?
> A 747 fits about 400 passengers and only needs 2 pilots
It needs many more than that. Depending on the workload it could be 10 or more per plane.
Consider a daily shuttle between LAX-NRT, a 11h40m flight. This will usually require 3 pilots, as pilots cannot legally fly more than 8-9 hours per day. When they arrive, the plane is turned around in a few hours and comes back - but the original crew needs rest, so at least 3 pilots have to be waiting at the other end, ready to go. And when the plane arrives back in LAX, who's going to take it back to tokyo? Those 3 are resting! So straight up that's 9 required, at an absolute minimum, with no margin for sickness or holiday.
Longer segments can require 4 pilots, so again that's 12 at an absolute minimum. Realistically speaking, depending on a whole bunch of factors, airlines would aim to actually have about 15-20 pilots per plane in a long haul heavy scenario.
And we haven't even mentioned cabin crew, which would be 12 or so on our hypothetical 747. So again, multiply that by 3 at a minimum and you've got something like 40 cabin crew per aircraft.
So 15 highly paid pilots (say 150k/yr) and 45 slightly less paid cabin crew (50k/yr) - that's close to $4.5m/yr just on crew. For ONE airplane. You've got to be making $12k/day on that plane just to pay flight staff, let alone ground staff and everything else.
In the world of narrowbodies the economics are even more brutal. If a plane's on the ground it's not making money, so say you try to have the plane in the air 10 hours a day. Due to flying limits over extended periods you would need 8 pilots to fill that with no margin, and probably 8 or so crew for a 737 with 4 active. Realistically you're looking at a crew bill of $2m/yr, or ~$35 per seat per day. Even if you manage to squeeze 7 segments out of the plane per day with 100% load factor that's $5 per ticket just on crew in a market where every single dollar counts.
Now obviously I'm grossly oversimplifying and pretty much every number I mentioned can vary - but not by all that much. I'd say those numbers are at least in the ballpark for a full service carrier and if anything the long haul estimate is probably too low - I've heard up to 24 pilots per plane for long haul carriers like the ME3. So finally the point is, crew wages absolutely make a difference!
It needs many more than that. Depending on the workload it could be 10 or more per plane.
Consider a daily shuttle between LAX-NRT, a 11h40m flight. This will usually require 3 pilots, as pilots cannot legally fly more than 8-9 hours per day. When they arrive, the plane is turned around in a few hours and comes back - but the original crew needs rest, so at least 3 pilots have to be waiting at the other end, ready to go. And when the plane arrives back in LAX, who's going to take it back to tokyo? Those 3 are resting! So straight up that's 9 required, at an absolute minimum, with no margin for sickness or holiday.
Longer segments can require 4 pilots, so again that's 12 at an absolute minimum. Realistically speaking, depending on a whole bunch of factors, airlines would aim to actually have about 15-20 pilots per plane in a long haul heavy scenario.
And we haven't even mentioned cabin crew, which would be 12 or so on our hypothetical 747. So again, multiply that by 3 at a minimum and you've got something like 40 cabin crew per aircraft.
So 15 highly paid pilots (say 150k/yr) and 45 slightly less paid cabin crew (50k/yr) - that's close to $4.5m/yr just on crew. For ONE airplane. You've got to be making $12k/day on that plane just to pay flight staff, let alone ground staff and everything else.
In the world of narrowbodies the economics are even more brutal. If a plane's on the ground it's not making money, so say you try to have the plane in the air 10 hours a day. Due to flying limits over extended periods you would need 8 pilots to fill that with no margin, and probably 8 or so crew for a 737 with 4 active. Realistically you're looking at a crew bill of $2m/yr, or ~$35 per seat per day. Even if you manage to squeeze 7 segments out of the plane per day with 100% load factor that's $5 per ticket just on crew in a market where every single dollar counts.
Now obviously I'm grossly oversimplifying and pretty much every number I mentioned can vary - but not by all that much. I'd say those numbers are at least in the ballpark for a full service carrier and if anything the long haul estimate is probably too low - I've heard up to 24 pilots per plane for long haul carriers like the ME3. So finally the point is, crew wages absolutely make a difference!
WHOA. Outstanding comment, thank you. This was not obvious to me. I had no idea pilots got paid rest. Taxi drivers are required to rest too, but at their own expense.
Well thank you but actually you are right. Pilots are NOT paid rest. Per regulation they can work 1000 hours per year and they will ensure this is fully utilised. Airlines cannot just hire and not use pilots or, of course, they will jump ship to someone who can.
It's a pretty interesting industry.
It's a pretty interesting industry.
Fuel and maintenance. Airline margins are already extremely thin.
"wages"? Don't be silly Uber doesn't pay the drivers/pilots wages. That would imply these people were employees!
The situation you describe is not so different from that at regional affiliated airlines.
Wow hahaha. First time I've ever upvoted a comment purely 100% for humor. This really is a hilarious moment in the software news cycle.
Internal: "Quick, dev team, make it a little harder to figure out that our speakers actually are recording 24/7!"
Public: "Uh we're having some unexpected delays"
Public: "Uh we're having some unexpected delays"
I'm imagining a Stewart Lee "sell phones to cars" type skit: "Quick, sell data! Sell data to anyone! Get more data to sell! Hurry!"
The values of Facebook, of which there are none.
The values of Facebook, of which there are none.
Attracted by the smell of fresh new data, all the usual suspects are present on this field. More and more smart home speakers/assistants really just look like to me the new 2018 widespread trojan horse way for collecting large amount of new data on users. Pass.
I'd say no, but I have no desire for a home assistant. Aside from the security concerns, the thought of talking to my devices just makes me reflexively gag. I mean, the main thing I like about them is that _I don't have to talk to them_.
I've got some Google Home Minis and I didn't realize how much I use them until I decided to make note of it: I use it to control my TV every night (Play bob's burgers, next episode, pause) and in the morning I ask for the weather and while drinking we ask it random questions we happen to be discussing. At night I say "bedtime" and it turns off the TV and lights and my dog knows that means it's time to go to bed and gets up as well. All stuff we used to do on our phones but now ask verbally - I guess I'm saying I find it more convenient now than bringing out my phone and having to type stuff. It becomes way less weird after like a week.
I don't find turning off the tv to be particularly challenging; it's one button on the remote. Maybe this works for you, and fine if it does. I don't really care if it's 'convenient'. I don't want to do it.
Probably smart -- cause Facebook listening to what goes on in your house is a sound idea.
Then again why does any one trust the companies who provide this service at all?
Then again why does any one trust the companies who provide this service at all?
I have one of these devices and, to answer your question, I don't trust the company that made it.
I don't trust most companies, but that doesn't stop me from buying their goods or using their services.
I don't trust most companies, but that doesn't stop me from buying their goods or using their services.
> why does any one trust the companies who provide this service at all?
I don't think they do. I think either they provide a service that people want, or that they truly have no idea they're the product.
I don't think they do. I think either they provide a service that people want, or that they truly have no idea they're the product.
I wouldn't be tarring all companies with the same brush.
Apple for example takes privacy pretty seriously so I am more than happy to allow their products inside my house.
Apple for example takes privacy pretty seriously so I am more than happy to allow their products inside my house.
I was going to say that I couldn't even imagine the selling point of this to the average consumer, but I'm not someone who uses my Echo for social uses (i.e. calling, or sending/receiving messages). For the FB/Instagram-addicted crowd, I guess I could see the appeal of being able to do voice-activated messaging, and to look at photo albums. And it's not something FB should want to give API access for to Alexa/Google/Siri.
That said, I think as popular as Echo devices are, people already have a bit of paranoia about them, and that's before considering the controversy FB is now undergoing. Unless the hardware is best-in-class, hard to see how this will fare any better than Facebook's failed attempt at its own phone with HTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First
That said, I think as popular as Echo devices are, people already have a bit of paranoia about them, and that's before considering the controversy FB is now undergoing. Unless the hardware is best-in-class, hard to see how this will fare any better than Facebook's failed attempt at its own phone with HTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First
> people already have a bit of paranoia about them
I was given one as a gift, and found it useful enough after a few days that I was willing to trust that it wasn't recording unless it detected the activation word locally.
And then I walked into the room while it was carrying on a conversation with my 2 year old, asking his name, etc. Unplugged it and plan to destroy it.
I was given one as a gift, and found it useful enough after a few days that I was willing to trust that it wasn't recording unless it detected the activation word locally.
And then I walked into the room while it was carrying on a conversation with my 2 year old, asking his name, etc. Unplugged it and plan to destroy it.
I wonder if the disembodied voice projection via Non-Lethal Laser Induced Plasma Effects discussed the other day[1] could be used to trip Alexa and such into recording --but at that point, maybe just putting a surreptitious piggybacking bug into Alexa might be a better alternative.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668825
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668825
I woke up at 2AM to my 3-year-old nephew asking for it to tell him bedtime stories. Though to be fair, I taught him how to invoke that skill from Alexa.
Someone should remind Amazon and Facebook that 1984 wasn't meant to be a business plan, and neither is /r/nosleep.
That's an interesting use case! Where does Alexa gets its bedtime stories? Does it read from public domain storybooks or must you purchase them like audio books?
It's an official-branded skill, "Amazon STorytime" that is a built-in for Alexa, e.g. you can invoke it by saying something informal, such as "Tell me a bedtime story" or "Tell me a story", rather than the way other skills are more narrowly namespaced.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073X5FYVF
It says the app "contains curated stories from the Amazon Rapids app library as well as a selection of Audible short stories". It's pretty good, as it features actors and sound effects. Can't say any of the stories were interesting to me (was hoping for Aesop Fables type stories, which is about all I remember growing up myself).
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073X5FYVF
It says the app "contains curated stories from the Amazon Rapids app library as well as a selection of Audible short stories". It's pretty good, as it features actors and sound effects. Can't say any of the stories were interesting to me (was hoping for Aesop Fables type stories, which is about all I remember growing up myself).
It's all fun and games until some device is collecting personal information from your two year old!
Two-year-olds are good at lying so it's probably OK.
dingo_bat(1)
I can’t imagine the selling point from a consumers point of view either.
I can imagine extremely well the field day fb product managers must have had with the notion of a 24/7 real time data feed of people’s homes.
I can imagine extremely well the field day fb product managers must have had with the notion of a 24/7 real time data feed of people’s homes.
Yep, like it's not enough that Facebook already knows a ton of information about your online life, these greedy monsters want to inject a spying device into your offline life. I am not an expert, but I guess that this Facebook product has pretty slim chances to be a hit.
Well they better not, they have lost almost all consumer trust at this point. They need to rebuild that, maybe for years to come.
You were always the product, not the consumer.
If developing for it is anything like developing for other Facebook platforms, I want nothing to do with it.
The article quotes "people familiar with the matter". For all we know, this could be a controlled leak, and the "people familiar with the matter" could be CXOs and Facebook's core management team. :)
Funny to see the alleged data abuse giant unravelling with all the hustle and bustle of upper management panic.
Funny to see the alleged data abuse giant unravelling with all the hustle and bustle of upper management panic.
Sorry to answer to my own post. I joined Facebook last week. After eleven years of refusing to play Facebook's game.
Here's the information I gathered from 20 minutes on Facebook - a powerful platform indeed.
The author (Sarah Frier) seems to be on good terms with the CXOs of Facebook:
CPO Chris Cox https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-facebook-reactions-c...
COO Sheryl Sandberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-27/how-shery...
CEO Mark Zuckerberg https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-facebook-virtual-rea...
To drive it all home: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/how-fake-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/mark-zuck... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/facebook-s...
Here's the information I gathered from 20 minutes on Facebook - a powerful platform indeed.
The author (Sarah Frier) seems to be on good terms with the CXOs of Facebook:
CPO Chris Cox https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-facebook-reactions-c...
COO Sheryl Sandberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-27/how-shery...
CEO Mark Zuckerberg https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-facebook-virtual-rea...
To drive it all home: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/how-fake-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/mark-zuck... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/facebook-s...
Should really be called the Facebook microphone.
They call all of their sources "the people".
It's not coming out yet, "the people said".
Kinda strange...
I think that's actually part of a general journalism style guide. It definitely sounds strange, but so does the constant third person passive voice you tend to see in journal articles.
[deleted]
""Facebook has been playing fast and loose with their data ever since they started. ... It was only a matter of time before that data was misused, and I think that advertisers knew that," said Andy Amendola, senior director of connections strategy at agency The Community. "We know there was this line that verges on creepy because we know the consumers' data, but I think that's what makes the advertising work so well."
For the most part, agencies are skeptical many people are going to leave Facebook - or at least enough to make a difference for advertisers. The public's attention span is fleeting, noted one executive, and even massive data breaches that affected Yahoo, which included 3 billion accounts, and Equifax - 147.9 million accounts - haven't turned people off those services.
...
In addition, the public already held Facebook in low regard leading up to the scandal. According to app analytics firm Sensor Tower, sentiment about the company during the the two weeks leading up to the Cambridge Analytica stories was already 83 percent negative - and people were still on the platform."
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/facebook-cambridge-analytica...
"3. The idea that users will abandon Facebook is unlikely. There's really no alternatives. An abandonment of Facebook and related apps would basically be an abandonment of social media altogether, which is an unrealistic expectation.
...
4. While Facebook currently produces the majority of its revenue from advertising, that's only the tip of the iceberg. Facebook can do many things to begin diversifying its revenue stream including entertainment or e-commerce.
...
So far Wall Street's opinion on Facebook has not been altered by the data scandal. According to MarketWatch, 37 out 44 analysts rank the stock as a "buy". The average price target is $221.56, which represents 39% upside based on the current stock price of $159.09."
Source: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4158807-facebook-let-others...
For the most part, agencies are skeptical many people are going to leave Facebook - or at least enough to make a difference for advertisers. The public's attention span is fleeting, noted one executive, and even massive data breaches that affected Yahoo, which included 3 billion accounts, and Equifax - 147.9 million accounts - haven't turned people off those services.
...
In addition, the public already held Facebook in low regard leading up to the scandal. According to app analytics firm Sensor Tower, sentiment about the company during the the two weeks leading up to the Cambridge Analytica stories was already 83 percent negative - and people were still on the platform."
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/facebook-cambridge-analytica...
"3. The idea that users will abandon Facebook is unlikely. There's really no alternatives. An abandonment of Facebook and related apps would basically be an abandonment of social media altogether, which is an unrealistic expectation.
...
4. While Facebook currently produces the majority of its revenue from advertising, that's only the tip of the iceberg. Facebook can do many things to begin diversifying its revenue stream including entertainment or e-commerce.
...
So far Wall Street's opinion on Facebook has not been altered by the data scandal. According to MarketWatch, 37 out 44 analysts rank the stock as a "buy". The average price target is $221.56, which represents 39% upside based on the current stock price of $159.09."
Source: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4158807-facebook-let-others...
> The public's attention span is fleeting, noted one executive, and even massive data breaches that affected Yahoo, which included 3 billion accounts, and Equifax - 147.9 million accounts - haven't turned people off those services.
The public wasn't turned off of Equifax because they weren't Equifax's customers in the first place.
The public wasn't turned off of Equifax because they weren't Equifax's customers in the first place.
> The public wasn't turned off of Equifax because they weren't Equifax's customers in the first place.
The public aren't even Equifax's users.
The public aren't even Equifax's users.
> Wall Street's opinion on Facebook has not been altered by the data scandal. According to MarketWatch, 37 out 44 analysts rank the stock as a "buy"
American equity "analysts’ recommendations...provide no (or biased) information related to future stock performance (e.g., Jegadeesh, Kim, Krische, and Lee 2006; Drake, Rees, and Swanson 2009...Bradshaw 2009)" [1]. Some research even concludes "that stock recommendations in the U.S. are either insignificantly (Bradshaw 2004) or negatively (Barniv et al. 2009; Drake et al. 2009) related to future returns" (page 4).
Meanwhile, from the 16 March to 27 March (close to close), Facebook dropped 18% [2]. Over the same interval, the S&P 500 lost 5.1% [3]. (Facebook is in the S&P 500 [4]; the rest of the S&P 500 did better than -5.1%. I chose 16 March since that's the day before the Cambridge Analytica breach broke [5].)
[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4e8/ffa418d387fb57a7cabe89... page 2
[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB/history?p=FB
[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history?p=%5EGSPC
[4] http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/11/investing/facebook-sp-500/in...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana...
American equity "analysts’ recommendations...provide no (or biased) information related to future stock performance (e.g., Jegadeesh, Kim, Krische, and Lee 2006; Drake, Rees, and Swanson 2009...Bradshaw 2009)" [1]. Some research even concludes "that stock recommendations in the U.S. are either insignificantly (Bradshaw 2004) or negatively (Barniv et al. 2009; Drake et al. 2009) related to future returns" (page 4).
Meanwhile, from the 16 March to 27 March (close to close), Facebook dropped 18% [2]. Over the same interval, the S&P 500 lost 5.1% [3]. (Facebook is in the S&P 500 [4]; the rest of the S&P 500 did better than -5.1%. I chose 16 March since that's the day before the Cambridge Analytica breach broke [5].)
[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4e8/ffa418d387fb57a7cabe89... page 2
[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB/history?p=FB
[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history?p=%5EGSPC
[4] http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/11/investing/facebook-sp-500/in...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana...
> ... an abandonment of social media altogether, which is an unrealistic expectation.
Really? My parents and siblings, and many friends, tried it, decided it wasn't all that interesting, and left. That's anecdata, but it spans several demographics. People were fine before "social media," so they can probably muddle through without it.
> Facebook can do many things to begin diversifying its revenue stream...
This is where things get scary. Facebook is a surveillance company, and when they can't make money with ads, they will make money in more nefarious ways.
> current stock price of $159.09
Make that $152.22. They're still searching for the bottom.
Really? My parents and siblings, and many friends, tried it, decided it wasn't all that interesting, and left. That's anecdata, but it spans several demographics. People were fine before "social media," so they can probably muddle through without it.
> Facebook can do many things to begin diversifying its revenue stream...
This is where things get scary. Facebook is a surveillance company, and when they can't make money with ads, they will make money in more nefarious ways.
> current stock price of $159.09
Make that $152.22. They're still searching for the bottom.
Facebook has over two billion users; it's network effects are insane. If you want to trade anecdotes, I have a chrome extension that allows me to track which Facebook friends are deleting their accounts, and exactly none have deleted their accounts since this whole thing started (500 friends from around the world, mostly university students).
By "left," I don't mean "deleted their accounts in response to recent news," or even "disabled their accounts." I'm sure they still have accounts, but they never use them because they see no point in doing so. I probably still have an Orkut account, as do many thousands of people, but that doesn't really matter for Google's profits. How many of your "friends" regularly use the thing?
But isnt it true that even for persons who have FB accounts but never use them, because of the presence of "Like buttons" or similar beacons, FB is still setting cookies and tracking those users, as well as non-members, as they navigate the rest of the web.
This assumes that those persons are 1. using browsers that automatically load images, even ones that serve them no purpose and exist only to feed data back to FB and other third parties and 2. taking no steps to prevent their computers from accessing these Facebook domains.
This assumes that those persons are 1. using browsers that automatically load images, even ones that serve them no purpose and exist only to feed data back to FB and other third parties and 2. taking no steps to prevent their computers from accessing these Facebook domains.
In other words, the fundamentals of the company are still strong. This is the exact kind of buying opportunity people talk about when buying on a dip. This isn’t a falling knife.
Market staying irrational is always a risk. Otherwise, i see recent developments as temporary. Market has very little memory, if any. Advertisers stop spending, but eventually they unlock spend too.
There's also bubbly-market effect, and these might result in deflation a bit.
There's also bubbly-market effect, and these might result in deflation a bit.
These discussions always remind me of https://xkcd.com/1269/
However, someone here on HN recently posted the open source voice assistant project mycroft:
https://mycroft.ai/
Fun to mess around with on Raspi and eventually I may link it up with Home Asssistant.