4 ms·

I would not be surprised if it turns out that Alexa is the biggest thing they've ever done, including AWS.

by rogerb 11y ago

runholm 11y ago
While voice assistants are likely to become a big industry, I don't see such a limited solution as Alexa stealing any large spotlight. They are too heavily locked down to be able to gain any traction in the big picture.
- kayoone 11y ago
  They are connecting more and more services, you can train your own "skills" and i am pretty sure they will open the platform up at some point. Could be huge. Remember, the first iPhone was totally locked down as well.
  - Nullabillity 11y ago
    The iPhone is still locked down, and it still sucks.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      If by "locked down" you mean able to develop and deploy your own software onto[1], then sure. Given what's going on with the FBI, I'm starting to see the absurd security of the platform as more a positive than a negative. [1]: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2933052/apple-frees-casual-ios-developers-of-membership-requirement.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2933052/apple-frees-casual-io...
      - Nullabillity 11y ago
        > If by "locked down" you mean able to develop and deploy your own software onto[1], then sure. That doesn't allow publishing anywhere, which is still behind a paywall and still tightly controlled. It also still requires you to use a Mac, from what I can tell. > Given what's going on with the FBI, I'm starting to see the absurd security of the platform as more a positive than a negative. Oh yes, the wonderful mixup between "security" and security. "Security" is just DRM and Tivoization by another name. Actual security would mean a device that doesn't come with horrible RCE vulnerabilities out of the box, which Apple doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation for, as well as allowing the user to choose things like what data applications have access to. The two have absolutely nothing in common.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        That doesn't allow publishing anywhere Which isn't the point the point is you can run what you want on your own device now regardless of whether Apple likes it or not. The tight control is a feature, not a bug. I'd rather put up with this slight nuisance than have the adware, malware infested dump that is the Play Store. Random hackers and advertisers are a much more clear and present threat than anything Apple can do to me. I've had less and less reasons to jailbreak over the past few releases, and with good reason, a jailbreak both lessens your security and functions as an exploit all on its own.
        Nullabillity 11y ago
        >> That doesn't allow publishing anywhere > Which isn't the point the point is you can run what you want on your own device now regardless of whether Apple likes it or not. So they've lightened a tiny bit for PR purposes, while still not giving the average user any practical freedom. > The tight control is a feature, not a bug. I'd rather put up with this slight nuisance than have the adware, malware infested dump that is the Play Store. Random hackers and advertisers are a much more clear and present threat than anything Apple can do to me. The Play Store is by no means perfect, but it's never been that awful. And besides, I'm fine with Apple exercising reasonable control over their own App Store, as long as sideloading is reasonably simple. > I've had less and less reasons to jailbreak over the past few releases, and with good reason, a jailbreak both lessens your security and functions as an exploit all on its own. The exploit is there whether you use it or not, the only difference is whether it's you or malware authors who gain anything from it.
    - kayoone 11y ago
      My point is that the first iphone did not have any 3rd party apps at all and id argue it did change the world of computing in the years after that. If you do not acknowledge that you are blind of hate for apple.
adventured 11y ago
Zero chance of that. AWS will likely be a $100-$150 billion market value business in five years, with $6-$8 billion in operating income. They're tracking to $3.x billion in operating income in the next four quarters. It'll be valued as highly as Intel and Oracle. A device that tells you the weather, orders an Uber, or orders more low margin merchandise off of Amazon, is not going to generate that kind of massive financial return. You can look at every lucrative business Echo could touch, and there's no scenario under which it could extract a large amount of monetary value. Ads? Not a chance. Sales referrals? No, the high margin stuff people want to visually browse for. Services? It could be 50 times larger than Angie's List and still not match AWS. Ordering Ubers? Ordering food? Ordering movie tickets? Relatively small sales, small percentage cut businesses.
- eclipxe 11y ago
  No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
- Kiro 11y ago
  You need to think outside the box. I'm sure you are completely wrong.
- signal11 11y ago
  I agree with you; however I believe the value of Alexa's value will be that it learns about you over time, making Amazon's services more "sticky" to the end-user, and making Amazon a more valuable marketplace to suppliers. For instance, in the UK, Amazon has very recently partnered with an actual supermarket to sell some groceries[1]. If agents really catch on, what would a business pay to be the default milk provider when someone or their fridge says "I need more milk"? [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35684829 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35684829
roymurdock 11y ago
Alexa requires AWS to run. It's a symbiotic relationship, and Alexa is the consumer-facing AI extension. They've marketed it better than Watson and Siri so far, giving it new hardware to live in and opening it up to developers. But without AWS, there is no Alexa.
- aroman 11y ago
  >they've marketed it better than Siri really?
  - untog 11y ago
    Well, marketed to who is the question. To consumers I think Siri is advertised better (certainly, the vast majority of my non-tech friends know about it, Alexa not so much) but to developers Alexa is, well, actually open, so the advertising writes itself.
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    Yeah, their super bowl commercial with Alec Baldwin was a huge hit. And everyone who uses amazon sees the thing plastered across the front page every time they use the website. They're also much more active on social media, and have (presumably) paid to get #AmazonEcho trending now on Twitter.
- toyg 11y ago
  > They've marketed it better than Watson and Siri It's hard to do worse than a platform that simply does not let third-parties in (Siri). I honestly don't understand why Apple is so opposed to the concept.

I would not be surprised if it turns out that Alexa is the biggest thing they've ever done, including AWS.

by rogerb 11y ago

I would not be surprised if it turns out that Alexa is the biggest thing they've ever done, including AWS.

While voice assistants are likely to become a big industry, I don't see such a limited solution as Alexa stealing any large spotlight. They are too heavily locked down to be able to gain any traction in the big picture.

kayoone 11y ago
They are connecting more and more services, you can train your own "skills" and i am pretty sure they will open the platform up at some point. Could be huge. Remember, the first iPhone was totally locked down as well.
- Nullabillity 11y ago
  The iPhone is still locked down, and it still sucks.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    If by "locked down" you mean able to develop and deploy your own software onto[1], then sure. Given what's going on with the FBI, I'm starting to see the absurd security of the platform as more a positive than a negative. [1]: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2933052/apple-frees-casual-ios-developers-of-membership-requirement.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2933052/apple-frees-casual-io...
    - Nullabillity 11y ago
      > If by "locked down" you mean able to develop and deploy your own software onto[1], then sure. That doesn't allow publishing anywhere, which is still behind a paywall and still tightly controlled. It also still requires you to use a Mac, from what I can tell. > Given what's going on with the FBI, I'm starting to see the absurd security of the platform as more a positive than a negative. Oh yes, the wonderful mixup between "security" and security. "Security" is just DRM and Tivoization by another name. Actual security would mean a device that doesn't come with horrible RCE vulnerabilities out of the box, which Apple doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation for, as well as allowing the user to choose things like what data applications have access to. The two have absolutely nothing in common.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        That doesn't allow publishing anywhere Which isn't the point the point is you can run what you want on your own device now regardless of whether Apple likes it or not. The tight control is a feature, not a bug. I'd rather put up with this slight nuisance than have the adware, malware infested dump that is the Play Store. Random hackers and advertisers are a much more clear and present threat than anything Apple can do to me. I've had less and less reasons to jailbreak over the past few releases, and with good reason, a jailbreak both lessens your security and functions as an exploit all on its own.
        Nullabillity 11y ago
        >> That doesn't allow publishing anywhere > Which isn't the point the point is you can run what you want on your own device now regardless of whether Apple likes it or not. So they've lightened a tiny bit for PR purposes, while still not giving the average user any practical freedom. > The tight control is a feature, not a bug. I'd rather put up with this slight nuisance than have the adware, malware infested dump that is the Play Store. Random hackers and advertisers are a much more clear and present threat than anything Apple can do to me. The Play Store is by no means perfect, but it's never been that awful. And besides, I'm fine with Apple exercising reasonable control over their own App Store, as long as sideloading is reasonably simple. > I've had less and less reasons to jailbreak over the past few releases, and with good reason, a jailbreak both lessens your security and functions as an exploit all on its own. The exploit is there whether you use it or not, the only difference is whether it's you or malware authors who gain anything from it.
  - kayoone 11y ago
    My point is that the first iphone did not have any 3rd party apps at all and id argue it did change the world of computing in the years after that. If you do not acknowledge that you are blind of hate for apple.

adventured 11y ago

Zero chance of that. AWS will likely be a $100-$150 billion market value business in five years, with $6-$8 billion in operating income. They're tracking to $3.x billion in operating income in the next four quarters. It'll be valued as highly as Intel and Oracle. A device that tells you the weather, orders an Uber, or orders more low margin merchandise off of Amazon, is not going to generate that kind of massive financial return. You can look at every lucrative business Echo could touch, and there's no scenario under which it could extract a large amount of monetary value. Ads? Not a chance. Sales referrals? No, the high margin stuff people want to visually browse for. Services? It could be 50 times larger than Angie's List and still not match AWS. Ordering Ubers? Ordering food? Ordering movie tickets? Relatively small sales, small percentage cut businesses.

eclipxe 11y ago
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Kiro 11y ago
You need to think outside the box. I'm sure you are completely wrong.
signal11 11y ago
I agree with you; however I believe the value of Alexa's value will be that it learns about you over time, making Amazon's services more "sticky" to the end-user, and making Amazon a more valuable marketplace to suppliers. For instance, in the UK, Amazon has very recently partnered with an actual supermarket to sell some groceries[1]. If agents really catch on, what would a business pay to be the default milk provider when someone or their fridge says "I need more milk"? [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35684829 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35684829

roymurdock 11y ago

Alexa requires AWS to run. It's a symbiotic relationship, and Alexa is the consumer-facing AI extension. They've marketed it better than Watson and Siri so far, giving it new hardware to live in and opening it up to developers. But without AWS, there is no Alexa.

aroman 11y ago
>they've marketed it better than Siri really?
- untog 11y ago
  Well, marketed to who is the question. To consumers I think Siri is advertised better (certainly, the vast majority of my non-tech friends know about it, Alexa not so much) but to developers Alexa is, well, actually open, so the advertising writes itself.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  Yeah, their super bowl commercial with Alec Baldwin was a huge hit. And everyone who uses amazon sees the thing plastered across the front page every time they use the website. They're also much more active on social media, and have (presumably) paid to get #AmazonEcho trending now on Twitter.
toyg 11y ago
> They've marketed it better than Watson and Siri It's hard to do worse than a platform that simply does not let third-parties in (Siri). I honestly don't understand why Apple is so opposed to the concept.