5 ms·

I would argue that it's not worth my 30 seconds to unlock my phone and open Shazam (which btw turns on the display and the radio, which then triggers other apps

by sly010 9y ago

I would argue that it's not worth my 30 seconds to unlock my phone and open Shazam (which btw turns on the display and the radio, which then triggers other apps to poll for notifications, so there goes your 1%) I would also bet the database is probably not much bigger then the shazam app itself. I frankly just find it a well balanced solution both in terms of UX and in terms of engineering.

awalton 9y ago
> it's not worth my 30 seconds to unlock my phone It takes me ~4 "seconds" (saying "one-one thousand" aloud) to do it when typing in a password (sorry, don't have a stopwatch handy). Just did it 10 times just to test. It'd be even faster with pin/fingerprint/face unlocking, or with no locking at all. I also used Shazam and Google's "what song is this" feature for somewhere less than 5 minutes on the initial few seconds of 10 songs and my battery indicator didn't move a single percentage during my testing. Shazam scored 10/10, Google missed one (a song from an esoteric Chicago band called Terminal Bliss - all of the songs I chose were intentionally fairly obtuse to try to find missing info in the databases). But I can say with fair assurances Google's not shipping their entire database on phones, just whatever's most popular up to some (probably size driven) limit; any given CD releases with about ten songs, any given year sees tens of thousands of CD releases (about 75,000 albums in 2010 alone). Worse, the entire feature's use case is better suited towards less popular music since you're less likely to know the song's name if it's new or esoteric - so you can almost immediately guess that those 70k songs in that database is just ~30 years of various genre chart topping hits. All you've done is cement my convictions that this is absolutely a solution in search of a problem.
- Nemi 9y ago
  > It takes me ~4 "seconds" (saying "one-one thousand" aloud) to do it when typing in a password (sorry, don't have a stopwatch handy). Just did it 10 times just to test. It'd be even faster with pin/fingerprint/face unlocking, or with no locking at all. Ah, but did you test this in your quiet office or home, sitting at your desk with both hands free? Let's try a real-world environment. Something like, say, driving in your car, in moderate traffic, with both hands on the wheel while listening to your radio. That ~4 seconds becomes a barrier-to-entry just large enough to abandon the idea of finding out what the name is to that song you are listening to. Because, lets be honest, wondering what the song is isn't that important. But it is nice. Which is why this feature has some proponents.
computerex 9y ago
> I would also bet the database is probably not much bigger then the shazam app itself. I don't know what you're trying to say here. Shazam has millions of songs in their database, according to the original paper the offline mobile recognition system by google just has something over 70k finger prints. That's the big benefit of using an online system, you don't have to have all the fingerprints stored locally and also don't have to stick to the low power constraint.

by sly010 9y ago

awalton 9y ago

> it's not worth my 30 seconds to unlock my phone It takes me ~4 "seconds" (saying "one-one thousand" aloud) to do it when typing in a password (sorry, don't have a stopwatch handy). Just did it 10 times just to test. It'd be even faster with pin/fingerprint/face unlocking, or with no locking at all. I also used Shazam and Google's "what song is this" feature for somewhere less than 5 minutes on the initial few seconds of 10 songs and my battery indicator didn't move a single percentage during my testing. Shazam scored 10/10, Google missed one (a song from an esoteric Chicago band called Terminal Bliss - all of the songs I chose were intentionally fairly obtuse to try to find missing info in the databases). But I can say with fair assurances Google's not shipping their entire database on phones, just whatever's most popular up to some (probably size driven) limit; any given CD releases with about ten songs, any given year sees tens of thousands of CD releases (about 75,000 albums in 2010 alone). Worse, the entire feature's use case is better suited towards less popular music since you're less likely to know the song's name if it's new or esoteric - so you can almost immediately guess that those 70k songs in that database is just ~30 years of various genre chart topping hits. All you've done is cement my convictions that this is absolutely a solution in search of a problem.

Nemi 9y ago
> It takes me ~4 "seconds" (saying "one-one thousand" aloud) to do it when typing in a password (sorry, don't have a stopwatch handy). Just did it 10 times just to test. It'd be even faster with pin/fingerprint/face unlocking, or with no locking at all. Ah, but did you test this in your quiet office or home, sitting at your desk with both hands free? Let's try a real-world environment. Something like, say, driving in your car, in moderate traffic, with both hands on the wheel while listening to your radio. That ~4 seconds becomes a barrier-to-entry just large enough to abandon the idea of finding out what the name is to that song you are listening to. Because, lets be honest, wondering what the song is isn't that important. But it is nice. Which is why this feature has some proponents.

computerex 9y ago

> I would also bet the database is probably not much bigger then the shazam app itself. I don't know what you're trying to say here. Shazam has millions of songs in their database, according to the original paper the offline mobile recognition system by google just has something over 70k finger prints. That's the big benefit of using an online system, you don't have to have all the fingerprints stored locally and also don't have to stick to the low power constraint.