Google: if you support Amazon Echo, you're cut off from Google Home and Chromecast | Hacker News Reader

Google: if you support Amazon Echo, you're cut off from Google Home and Chromecast

boingboing.net

133 pointswalterbell61 comments

"Of course, having a live, networked, corporate-controlled mic in your bedroom, living room and toilet is an idea that is so unbelievably terrible on its face that you could use it as the introduction to a term paper in 2040 explaining how human civilization nearly collapsed in the early 21st century."

This was the highlight of the article for me.

I live alone. I probably type a lot more intimate information into the computer than I say out loud. So if human civilization collapses, your term paper will probably start with that, and these always-listening devices will merely be an interesting footnote.

What about one in your pocket?

They are both bad in different ways. The first one is meant to listen all the time.

It's meant to listen locally all the time. If Google/Amazon wanted to be evil and snoop on us it would take exactly the same amount of effort.

Besides, many phones listen all the time too.

The only real difference is that the Echo has better microphones than your phone and is powered on all the time so you don't have to worry about battery life. On the other hand you probably say more sensitive things to your phone.

that's why mine is next to a tv that sits on broadcast tv all day -- confuse em

It would be funny to let it listen to a Numbers Station[1] all day long. If they are actually listening and processing, it might make for a fun feedback loop particularly of any theories about those stations are true.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station

or setup your own number station from a russian VPS and waste millions of tax dollars as intelligence agencies around the globe try to crack your garbage data

"You're violating our anti-AI confusion End User Agreement, so you are banned for life from Google. Anyone associate d with you will have their GMail account deleted as well. Please contact Google support if have any questions".

I'd recommend switching to talk radio. It would be far too easy to flag and filter syndicated television.

Nice feedback loop.

Recovery of civilization by 2040?

What is this boundless optimism? :-)

Where are the DoJ antitrust people when you need them? This is called an "exclusive dealing arrangement". That's legally questionable but some forms are legal.[1] The FTC has defined a "safety zone" - it's OK to do this if you have less than 20% market share or there are at least four competing technologies on the market. Google probably has too much market share for that.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/competit...

Actually, I think the problem for Google is that the market is already pretty fragmented, depending on how you slice it, and shows no signs of vendor consolidation. In this particular case, Google's pushing hard on the flat side of the boulder; they are trying to strongarm audio technology companies (who, unlike software and media companies, don't have any preëxisting entanglements with most software and service platforms) over a set of Google services that don't hold a particularly commanding position in the market vis a vis Amazon. I just don't get why they think they're in a strong negotiating position here, except that they must assume that the Google brand is powerful enough to create its own Kool-Aid-based distortion field.

>> the Google brand is powerful enough to create its own Kool-Aid-based distortion field.

Google is slowly building their brand position as 'invasion of privacy' despite their Kool-Aid colored logo.

Huge market opportunities for companies that can sell privacy by positioning themselves as the opposite of Google.

It all depends on the market they claim they're competing in.

If it's search, I'd wager you're 100% correct. They've won that by all measures.

If it's voice assistants, maybe you're right. Even with Android devices everywhere, it would be hard to show how much share they have.

If the market is home automation, then the Nest thermostat is probably their biggest risk/penetration in the space, especially, if they can frame DropCams as monitoring and not automation. Odds are security companies and others we've never heard of have most of this market.

But if they can position the market as voice-based home automation, they are almost definitely safe. Amazon and Samsung probably have the majority of that market and Google is the "little guy" coming into the fight.

The big variable is that if search gives them an "unfair advantage" in the Court's eyes... which will be up to lawyers to argue.

"But if they can position the market as voice-based home automation, they are almost definitely safe. Amazon and Samsung probably have the majority of that market and Google is the "little guy" coming into the fight."

That's a good point. Defining the relevant market is the name of the game in antitrust. Google could argue that they are a minor player in home appliances. If Samsung tried a lock-in contract, they'd probably be hammered in court. Google can argue they're a minor player in online retailing. If Amazon tried this, they'd probably lose.

The former FTC Commissioner, Joshua Wright, had previously been paid to write "independent studies" defending Google's antitrust position while teaching at George Mason U, which Google then used as expert material. Unsurprisingly, the antitrust investigation against Google was buried during his tenure, despite the FTC staff wanting to go forward with a formal complaint. Then add in that the Obama administration has placed Google employees in almost every high level tech position...

Suffice to say, I've yet to see anything that indicates the FTC intends to do anything about Google yet. Until international cases and public opinion support action against Google so strongly that our government can no longer bury it, we're not going to see anything done here.

> or there are at least four competing technologies on the market

Alexa, Cortana, Siri, Samsung S Voice, wit.ai, Mycroft, ...

Ok, so the source for that is this article: http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/google-home-amazon-echo...

And their source is "multiple sources":

    Google’s own negotiations with consumer electronics manufacturers could be
    hampered by what multiple sources have described as overly aggressive
    muscle-flexing. At the meeting in June, Google is said to have told home audio
    vendors that they won’t be allowed to add any other digital assistants than
    Google’s own to their hardware if they want to continue to use Google Cast.
    Another source told Variety of similarly far-reaching demands made in
    negotiations with another big consumer electronics manufacturer — demands that
    ultimately led to talks breaking down.

I'm having issues with Variety's website being awful.

I previously read another take on that source on AndroidPolice[1] where it was framed more as "If you include Google Home you cannot include another Digital Assistant (e.g. Alexa)" which makes a lot more sense (obviously you can't have two assistants running at once) - though allowing it to be switchable would be nice.

It'll be interesting to see what the truth of the matter is.

I guess if somebody has Siri, Google Now, Google Home, Amazon Echo, etc. and then they ask to change the music it would be a pretty fun mess.

"Echo, change the music."

"Hey Siri, change the music."

The last service requested should be able to take over the device.

Google's problem is that if tries to bully the audio makers, the audio makers will ignore Google Cast.

This is actually rather a stupid thing to do when Google is a minor player in a much bigger market. It's also going to make builders in other markets wonder if Google is good company to support.

So, you read the release more directly, and had an issue with it, but then went to a fan blog, which read it from the same source, but speculated a way to frame it as more positive for the company they depend on for their site's existence, and took that as the more valuable piece of information?

You misunderstand.

The source website jumped around a lot, had a terrible full-page advert, and then for some reason completely blanked the page.

I saw a separate article that had this limited to Cast devices (also like beaner points out, it was light on details). Is that true? If so, does the fact that amazon refuses to sell Chromecast have anything to do with this? (And other Cast-related restrictions from Amazon)

Disclaimer: work for Google, but so very far away from any of this stuff

It's impossible for us to know why Google decided to do this. But both issues could both be considered antitrust issues. Amazon's staggering market share in shopping puts them at risk by them not selling a competitor's products in another market segment. And Google's attempts to strongarm manufacturers into blocking out a competitor is obviously problematic.

The argument could be made (and I think Amazon technically claimed it) that Amazon blocked Chromecast from their store for incompatibility with their products, because Google won't allow forks of Android to have Google apps on them. Which is also anticompetitive.

So, if we want to suggest both companies are petty as all get out, it's plausible Google was anticompetitive, Amazon was anticompetitive in response, and then Google was anticompetitive again in reaction to that. What's next? Maybe Amazon will remove Chromebooks?

> What's next? Maybe Amazon will remove Chromebooks?

And as a result, Google will refuse to list amazon in search, their DNS servers won’t resolve it, and Chrome will refuse to open it, and their malware filters will mark it as fraudulent page.

Heh. "Which Internet would you like to connect to today? Facebook, Google or Amazon?"

It is funny but sad. I think we'll look back at the golden age of open Internet with fondness and nostalgia at some point

> Of course, having a live, networked, corporate-controlled mic in your bedroom, living room and toilet ...

Well, we already have that, it's in your cellphone.

Except that someone would have noticed if all sound was sent to NSA HQ (or whomever). With these mics, that's by design.

It's fairly easy to tell that these devices do not send data until woken up by their keywords.

> It's fairly easy to tell that these devices do not send data until woken up by their keywords.

Indeed, we can confirm that they don't upload until woken.

Now, can we determine what they do upload at that point? Perhaps the previous two minutes of conversation, recorded for context to 'improve the consumer experience'? We just don't know.

Back in the early days of HTML forms on the Web, we were told to double-check the domain and SSL status before pressing 'submit'. Then JavaScript arrived and websites gained the ability to stream the data from text fields before the user had even submitted the form. I see a parallel with these in-house devices, they have a great deal of privacy-violating potential that runs contrary to people's expectations that a device only starts to perform a function when commanded to do so.

That's different from what I previously heard. Mobile devices perhaps (because limited bandwidth and battery), but about these mics (and the "smart" TVs) I heard they upload everything and detect the trigger word online as well.

More processing power, everything centralized, I get it from a software engineering standpoint, but it's a privacy nightmare.

Next time I read someone claiming this I'll look or ask for a source. Do you have one that says they don't start sending until after the keyword?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...

> 1. How do Amazon Echo and Echo Dot recognize the wake word?

Amazon Echo and Echo Dot use on-device keyword spotting to detect the wake word. When these devices detect the wake word, they stream audio to the Cloud, including a fraction of a second of audio before the wake word.

Maybe the others are different, but Amazon has claimed that they detect the watch word locally and then start sending, but with a buffer that sends starting just before you said the watch word.

Thanks!

I typically love Google but if true this is the kind of thing that makes me hope they lose.

The article is a little light on evidence however, so I'm a little skeptical.

Google is the Microsoft that wants to cripple competitors and stamp over its users to make a quick buck. Nothing to see here.

I'm off nearly all Google products, including search and Android. I've recently moved both my parents onto Windows phones.

History always repeats itself for all these huge enterprises. Microsoft did all the same types of things, and their anti-competitive behavior was a significant part of the reason why Linux got that toehold that turned into a handhold... that turned into a...

The same thing is going to happen to Google in lots of other markets. They can only force people to use, I mean line extend, their brand to a certain point before they paint themselves into a corner.

I have moved almost entirely off of Google products. The sole exception at this point is search, which I use but without a Google account.

It should be noted my issues with Google is really more of an issue with corporate surveillance - of which Google happens to be king.

How do you get personal assistants without surveillance?

The answer is: you don't. I personally refuse to have something like the Echo in my house.

Yes, this is my answer too. No chance on the face of the Earth that an Amazon(R) or Google(R) Corporate Surveillance Device is coming into my home.

What will you do when the people who have personal assistants have a huge advantage over you and your kids? E.g. like being afraid of using a computer in 2016?

I'm not criticising you, I'm looking for honest discussion. We can opt out of these things, until they become de-facto mandatory to education, jobs, etc.

You moved your parents from one anti-competitive company to an even more anti-competitive company?

Arguably, Microsoft isn't being particularly anticompetitive right now. Particularly in phones, where they can't afford to be. (In fact, general feedback has it that Microsoft's apps are better on iOS and Android than their own platform.)

Unfortunately for many of us, it's impossible to avoid dealing with at least one of these big behemoth companies. The best we can do is to keep dancing from one to one based on what the least worst option is at the time.

Right now, I'd trust Microsoft over both Google and Apple, but I also have no misconceptions about the reality that at some point, that will almost certainly change. When a company is on top, it looks for how to stay there. So the goal for the freedom-minded individual should probably be to constantly support the party currently losing the war.

Better to have multiple, competitive companies vacuuming up the information than 1 company.

Exactly. I use Google for search but nothing else.

Google is one of the evilest companies in the world.

The lack of interoperability between devices is the biggest PITA for home entertainment right now. I currently have two Apple TVs (last gen has no audio out), a Chromecast Audio[1], a PS4, a NAS and a reasonably-smart TV all linked together and still can't stream fucking bluetooth audio to my sound system.

[1] which I only use for the (proprietary) Spotify Connect

Considering none of those devices have Bluetooth (well, the PS4 does for the controller) , why would you be able to? That's like buying a scooter, a sports car, and a diesel Volkswagen, and complaining you can't haul a 700lb snowmobile in the non-existent bed. It makes no sense.

Buy a simple $8 3.5mm -> BT transmitter and plug it in. Done.

The chromecast I bought is the dongle. That's exactly the issue. A more apt analogy would be to buy a scooter, a sports car and a VW all with powerful onboard computers and audio systems and not being able to play music from your phone because there is no Bluetooth!

Actually cars are pretty far ahead in that sense, in any modern car BT "just works".

From a skim of the variety article, it seems that google is blocking access to their assistant at a vendor level - i.e. if you have a product that includes the alexa assistant, you can't also have a product that includes the google assistant. This seems fairly stupid if true.

I'm hoping that either i'm reading it wrong, or variety has misinterpreted the sources, and google is actually attempting to block multiple voice assistants on a per-device level. Because to me, that makes perfect sense - products like amazon's echo or google home would get very confusing if they included multiple different voice-triggered assistants.

Seems fair. Amazon no longer lets me Chromecast Prime videos.

Seems stupid to me. Amazon wants to cripple their product so Google needs to show that they can out-cripple Amazon?

Digital crip wars.

Or prevent you buying their product. Amazon no longer sells Chromecast.

And refuses to allow Chromecast or apple TV to be sold on their marketplace.

Taken a little too far. Nest products (owned by Alphabet) support Amazon Echo. (Or is Alexa now?)

Elon's new project can't come soon enough.

So you can live in a company town on Mars where your very survival depends on the company?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com