Hacker News Reader

Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

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

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

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

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

View on HN

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

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

Why do you think that's the primary use for most people?

I do see the appeal. Amazon sells the speakers below cost because they want to get the microphone in your house, so you can get a good deal on speakers that way.

But it's a very small part of what Amazon advertises.

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

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

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

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

Feel free to call it what you like; it doesn't bother me.

But it's not "misleading" (as you claimed above) to call it a microphone. It clearly is a microphone, albeit "smarter" than most microphones.

And whatever a particular customer's use case might be, the microphone is the reason Amazon sells them below cost.

I can call it whatever I want? I'm not the one committing the fallacy of composition here.

The device in question is definitely not a microphone. It has a microphone.

Smart TVs, Smart Fridges, Smart Thermostats, and Smart Clocks can all have microphones. That doesn't mean you should call them smart microphones. Microphones are used for the UX of a smart speaker because before speakers were smart they were already interacting with your ears, and using your voice is a natural complement to that (just like a conversation with another human). Not because the intention was to make passive listening devices that spy on you.

It's not a speaker either; it merely has a speaker. Most of its advertised features are not features of a speaker.

It makes just as much sense to call it a smart microphone as a smart speaker, even if it's bad PR for Amazon.

Consider your own examples: add a microphone and voice rec to a thermostat and you get a smart thermostat. Connect an Echo to a thermostat and you get exactly the same thing; the Echo is providing the microphone and voice rec.

The reason it is called a smart speaker is because of the form factor, which is that of a speaker. It is a speaker with more things inside of it. The "smartness" is contained within the "speaker".

It is the same formula for every other smart device mentioned in this thread:

1. Take device with certain form factor

2. Add computer chip and new interfacing capability (touchscreens, fancier remotes, microphones, internet control)

3. It is now a "smart" [form factor]

Since you're a fan of fallacies, that's moving the goalposts.

Earlier you insisted we name the device based on what it is, not merely a part of it. Now you want to name it after the case, which is merely a part of it.

Feel free to use that formula yourself but I see no reason why you should insist that everyone else use it.

That is the formula everyone else is already using – you're the exception, not the rule.

> Earlier you insisted we name the device based on what it is,

Yes, on what it is. As I've said, the convention is to name something "Smart X" based on adding "smart" features and whatever the form factor is. So this is a smart speaker.

There is no precedent to call this a smart microphone, and again, there are other things with microphones that we don't call smart microphones for that reason.

The speaker is part of the device, sure. But it is also the form factor of the device, a title the mic cannot claim. There is no conflict there, just further explanation was required because you are being deliberately obtuse.

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

So even those who don’t speak can use it

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

Or the inadequacy of the speaker included in the Echo Dot, and that Amazon knows it's not a good speaker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com