13 ms·

A few thoughts: - This is way less creepy-looking than the Amazon Look (https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Hands-Free-Camera-Style-Assistant/dp/B0186JAEWK https://www

A few thoughts: - This is way less creepy-looking than the Amazon Look (https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Hands-Free-Camera-Style-Assistant/dp/B0186JAEWK https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Hands-Free-Camera-Style-Assistan...), but it is actually very similar. - It is great to add a screen to the Echo. Just more feedback on interacting with it, and possibility to watch YouTube, Netflix, etc. casually. - It doesn't have the same cool minimalism as the Echo. The Echo sits on my counter and looks nice when not in use. I think this one looks much clunkier. - I definitely want to try one.

odonnellryan 9y ago
I wonder, why go this route instead of creating a device to add to your TV? My echo is right next to the TV.
- thatwebdude 9y ago
  Doesn't the FireTV/Stick do full-on Alexa now?
  - sailfast 9y ago
    Yes - though it's not listening and you need the voice remote to be in your hand and/or you need to spin up the app on your phone. While that doesn't sound like a barrier to much, it definitely has been for me asking for simple things especially from across the room. Voice interfaces are good for hands-free action, which FireTV doesn't really allow.
    - cbhl 9y ago
      As someone who owns both an Echo and a Fire TV Stick, I found it initially surprising that the Echo couldn't control things on the TV. I also found it surprising that the same APIs returning voice responses had been returning data about things to display on a screen the whole time. This seems like an obvious product for those who completely buy into the Alexa ecosystem.
      - odonnellryan 9y ago
        Yeah. I really meant Alexa being able to control my TV.
  - HannibalChew 9y ago
    It does.
- rkangel 9y ago
  Because this way the screen can turn on and off dynamically. Also, it doesn't tie you to having to have a TV in a location you want one.
  - problems 9y ago
    HDMI-CEC allows similar on most modern TVs. As for not being tied to where you have a TV, for $200 you can buy a 40"+ 1080p TV, for $100 you can have a really nice IPS 22" 1080p monitor. Probably better than this tiny thing.
    - alphakappa 9y ago
      Would you put that TV on your kitchen counter? Sometimes you don't need a 22” screen.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        Yeah. I have no place in my kitchen to reasonably put a large monitor. That said, I wouldnt be at surprised to see a future version of this as a box or a fire stick like thing to plug into an existing tv.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - smacktoward 9y ago
      The moment you tell people "for this to work you have to go buy something else separately," you lose a huge chunk of potential sales. People don't want to do the work of figuring out what specific model of something else they need, where they have to go to get it, etc. Even if you put the something else on the shelf right next to your thing, the added cognitive load will turn lots of people off. Build the other thing in to your thing, and all those problems go away.
      - NegativeLatency 9y ago
        Did you click through and see the offers to bundle security cameras and other IOT products?
- nicky0 9y ago
  Locate remote, Turn on TV, select EXT3 input....
  - jerf 9y ago
    Modern HDMI-based systems can do this in one stroke. And by "modern" I mean that pushing my PS3 (yes, 3, not 4) button to start it up starts up my TV, and would start up my audio system were it not too old for that. (Though it occurs to me now to check whether it might do that if I routed HDMI in to it; for historical reasons I route optical audio to it which I believe lacks the channel for this.) Shutting things back down seems to be a bit more challenging, though. The TV recognizes the PS3 turning off and returns to live TV (the last thing I really want it to switch to, but whatever), but the whole system teardown is a bit more complicated.
    - yoz-y 9y ago
      On my PS3 this worked 100% of the time, one third of the time. I suppose that for this sort of application you really need it to be 100% reliable.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- Kiro 9y ago
  Not everyone has or wants a TV.
  - wmichelin 9y ago
    Who doesn't have a TV or at least a laptop?
- cbhl 9y ago
  They actually already have that. The Fire TV Stick has "Alexa" in it, but you have to use the push-to-talk remote instead of having an always-on mic as in the Echo.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Won't be long until TV's are internet connected microphones too.
    - rdrey 9y ago
      You mean like this very real hack? https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421326/smart-tv-hacking-cia-samsung-weeping-angel-vulnerability https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421326/smart-tv-hacking...
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    It would be nice not to need a remote, like with Kinect but with better mics and voice recognition
    - simcop2387 9y ago
      Part of the problem with that is that if the TV isn't on the right input then you won't be able to receive the response. HDMI Control to change the input exists, but with false positives it might be a bad thing still because it would interrupt whatever you're doing to listen and go "i couldn't understand the question i was asked". I'd quickly disable it if it was doing that.
      - 8ytecoder 9y ago
        I power my chromecast directly and it uses HDMI-CEC to automatically turn on the TV. It works pretty well.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  It's not too expensive and it can make calls, plays music, and hopefully can show recipes or TV shows. It sounds like exactly what I would want for my kitchen.
- mikeleeorg 9y ago
  My guess is the TV market is different than the market they're going after, which kinds of seems like a "digital assistant" kind of market. Presumably, they could come out with an Amazon Echo-fied TV sometime in the future though, but their priority of device releases seems careful and calculated. Amazon Echo first, to see if there's even any market for digital assistants. Amazon Echo Dot next, to extend their reach in the house. Amazon Echo Look and Show third and fourth, released at roughly the same time, to extend their reach into some of people's everyday behaviors. I imagine they have a roadmap that is aligned to other everyday behaviors and prioritized against what is easier to aid with a AI-powered digital assistant. Changing behaviors are never easy, so presumably, they are targeting ones that are less habitualized, under-served, or not currently served at all. With that theory in mind, TV is already a well-served need, so it wouldn't be a high priority to Amazon Echo-fy just yet.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  I don't think this is the same usecase, and the person above suggesting it could be used for Netflix is a bit ridiculous to me. I see it more for watching a quick instructional Youtube videos (as we all know there's a How To for everything on Youtube). It's also something small and easy to have around the house for quick video calls. For watching anything long and serious, I would definitely send it to my TV.
amelius 9y ago
> This is way less creepy-looking than the Amazon Look Seriously, these boxes should have a pair of eyes drawn on them as part of the design, to remind the user that they are being watched.
- mikeleeorg 9y ago
  I'm surprised an Amazon Echo accessories category hasn't really started yet. I could see kids loving a pair of googly eyes on their family Amazon device 8-)
- shostack 9y ago
  I don't think Amazon wants to remind people it is omnipresent like that. For example, I got an Amazon Tap because I liked having a physical button to enable the mic. They then released a setting in the Alexa app that allowed it to always listen when toggled on (yes, I realize if I truly cared about privacy that a button like that is just an illusion and they can record whenever they want). That was fine, I tried it out in situations where I didn't have a free hand (doing dishes for example). It had red notification lights that came on when it was always listening which reminded me the setting was on. This is also important because of the way the battery drains when it is on. Recently I went to switch it on, and no red lights. There was no visible indicator my Tap was listening or not. Why would they decide to remove that?
- ansible 9y ago
  Better yet, they should put a stepper motor in the bottom of the unit. Then it can rotate towards the user. That would work better for hands-free use, and would make the video calling work better too, if you are up and about.
ehsankia 9y ago
I doubt anyone would use this to watch long videos or Netflix. I see it more for quick calls and short instructional videos. It's small and fits in any room of the house. For longer videos, you'd definitely just send it to the TV. Watching random videos while washing the dishes though is great.

odonnellryan 9y ago

I wonder, why go this route instead of creating a device to add to your TV? My echo is right next to the TV.

thatwebdude 9y ago
Doesn't the FireTV/Stick do full-on Alexa now?
- sailfast 9y ago
  Yes - though it's not listening and you need the voice remote to be in your hand and/or you need to spin up the app on your phone. While that doesn't sound like a barrier to much, it definitely has been for me asking for simple things especially from across the room. Voice interfaces are good for hands-free action, which FireTV doesn't really allow.
  - cbhl 9y ago
    As someone who owns both an Echo and a Fire TV Stick, I found it initially surprising that the Echo couldn't control things on the TV. I also found it surprising that the same APIs returning voice responses had been returning data about things to display on a screen the whole time. This seems like an obvious product for those who completely buy into the Alexa ecosystem.
    - odonnellryan 9y ago
      Yeah. I really meant Alexa being able to control my TV.
- HannibalChew 9y ago
  It does.
rkangel 9y ago
Because this way the screen can turn on and off dynamically. Also, it doesn't tie you to having to have a TV in a location you want one.
- problems 9y ago
  HDMI-CEC allows similar on most modern TVs. As for not being tied to where you have a TV, for $200 you can buy a 40"+ 1080p TV, for $100 you can have a really nice IPS 22" 1080p monitor. Probably better than this tiny thing.
  - alphakappa 9y ago
    Would you put that TV on your kitchen counter? Sometimes you don't need a 22” screen.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Yeah. I have no place in my kitchen to reasonably put a large monitor. That said, I wouldnt be at surprised to see a future version of this as a box or a fire stick like thing to plug into an existing tv.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - smacktoward 9y ago
    The moment you tell people "for this to work you have to go buy something else separately," you lose a huge chunk of potential sales. People don't want to do the work of figuring out what specific model of something else they need, where they have to go to get it, etc. Even if you put the something else on the shelf right next to your thing, the added cognitive load will turn lots of people off. Build the other thing in to your thing, and all those problems go away.
    - NegativeLatency 9y ago
      Did you click through and see the offers to bundle security cameras and other IOT products?
nicky0 9y ago
Locate remote, Turn on TV, select EXT3 input....
- jerf 9y ago
  Modern HDMI-based systems can do this in one stroke. And by "modern" I mean that pushing my PS3 (yes, 3, not 4) button to start it up starts up my TV, and would start up my audio system were it not too old for that. (Though it occurs to me now to check whether it might do that if I routed HDMI in to it; for historical reasons I route optical audio to it which I believe lacks the channel for this.) Shutting things back down seems to be a bit more challenging, though. The TV recognizes the PS3 turning off and returns to live TV (the last thing I really want it to switch to, but whatever), but the whole system teardown is a bit more complicated.
  - yoz-y 9y ago
    On my PS3 this worked 100% of the time, one third of the time. I suppose that for this sort of application you really need it to be 100% reliable.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Kiro 9y ago
Not everyone has or wants a TV.
- wmichelin 9y ago
  Who doesn't have a TV or at least a laptop?
cbhl 9y ago
They actually already have that. The Fire TV Stick has "Alexa" in it, but you have to use the push-to-talk remote instead of having an always-on mic as in the Echo.
- dmix 9y ago
  Won't be long until TV's are internet connected microphones too.
  - rdrey 9y ago
    You mean like this very real hack? https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421326/smart-tv-hacking-cia-samsung-weeping-angel-vulnerability https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421326/smart-tv-hacking...
- chaostheory 9y ago
  It would be nice not to need a remote, like with Kinect but with better mics and voice recognition
  - simcop2387 9y ago
    Part of the problem with that is that if the TV isn't on the right input then you won't be able to receive the response. HDMI Control to change the input exists, but with false positives it might be a bad thing still because it would interrupt whatever you're doing to listen and go "i couldn't understand the question i was asked". I'd quickly disable it if it was doing that.
    - 8ytecoder 9y ago
      I power my chromecast directly and it uses HDMI-CEC to automatically turn on the TV. It works pretty well.
tdb7893 9y ago
It's not too expensive and it can make calls, plays music, and hopefully can show recipes or TV shows. It sounds like exactly what I would want for my kitchen.
mikeleeorg 9y ago
My guess is the TV market is different than the market they're going after, which kinds of seems like a "digital assistant" kind of market. Presumably, they could come out with an Amazon Echo-fied TV sometime in the future though, but their priority of device releases seems careful and calculated. Amazon Echo first, to see if there's even any market for digital assistants. Amazon Echo Dot next, to extend their reach in the house. Amazon Echo Look and Show third and fourth, released at roughly the same time, to extend their reach into some of people's everyday behaviors. I imagine they have a roadmap that is aligned to other everyday behaviors and prioritized against what is easier to aid with a AI-powered digital assistant. Changing behaviors are never easy, so presumably, they are targeting ones that are less habitualized, under-served, or not currently served at all. With that theory in mind, TV is already a well-served need, so it wouldn't be a high priority to Amazon Echo-fy just yet.
ehsankia 9y ago
I don't think this is the same usecase, and the person above suggesting it could be used for Netflix is a bit ridiculous to me. I see it more for watching a quick instructional Youtube videos (as we all know there's a How To for everything on Youtube). It's also something small and easy to have around the house for quick video calls. For watching anything long and serious, I would definitely send it to my TV.

amelius 9y ago

> This is way less creepy-looking than the Amazon Look Seriously, these boxes should have a pair of eyes drawn on them as part of the design, to remind the user that they are being watched.

mikeleeorg 9y ago
I'm surprised an Amazon Echo accessories category hasn't really started yet. I could see kids loving a pair of googly eyes on their family Amazon device 8-)
shostack 9y ago
I don't think Amazon wants to remind people it is omnipresent like that. For example, I got an Amazon Tap because I liked having a physical button to enable the mic. They then released a setting in the Alexa app that allowed it to always listen when toggled on (yes, I realize if I truly cared about privacy that a button like that is just an illusion and they can record whenever they want). That was fine, I tried it out in situations where I didn't have a free hand (doing dishes for example). It had red notification lights that came on when it was always listening which reminded me the setting was on. This is also important because of the way the battery drains when it is on. Recently I went to switch it on, and no red lights. There was no visible indicator my Tap was listening or not. Why would they decide to remove that?
ansible 9y ago
Better yet, they should put a stepper motor in the bottom of the unit. Then it can rotate towards the user. That would work better for hands-free use, and would make the video calling work better too, if you are up and about.

ehsankia 9y ago

I doubt anyone would use this to watch long videos or Netflix. I see it more for quick calls and short instructional videos. It's small and fits in any room of the house. For longer videos, you'd definitely just send it to the TV. Watching random videos while washing the dishes though is great.