3 ms·

50 million Alexa users. Wow. I remain astonished that so many people would choose to install an always-on, cloud-connected listening device in their most priva

50 million Alexa users. Wow. I remain astonished that so many people would choose to install an always-on, cloud-connected listening device in their most private spaces, with utterly no accountability or auditability. Especially since there's no technical reason for speech recognition to require cloud connectivity.

lazyjones 8y ago
> I remain astonished that so many people would choose to install an always-on, cloud-connected listening device in their most private spaces, with utterly no accountability or auditability. You mean after their smartphones and smart TVs and after putting many years’ worth of intimate details on FB despite all the discussions of Zuckerbergs attitude towards privacy? It doesn‘t surprise me at all.
raxxorrax 8y ago
I have 4 different Alexa devices on 2 different accounts. Developed an IoT-Solution for some devices. Was really fun and I really liked developing against Alexa. Amazon also has some neat solutions for user management and overall AWS services are pretty extensive. Would recommend. That said, I never ever would use Alexa or Alexa-capable devices at home and I doubt many users will use the IoT-functions of the devices in question. It is mostly for marketing to have a voice-interface. But the development was still very fun. > Especially since there's no technical reason for speech recognition to require cloud connectivity Never opened the boxes but I think Alexa devices are cheap w-lan capable microphones with very basic speakers and software. Having a lot of samples definitely helps for voice recognition. And you need some processing power, additionally to as much memory as you can press into that box.
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  The kind of processing power needed for good-enough speaker-independent recognition at home has been cheap for several years. For speaker-dependent recognition, it's been cheap for decades. Amazon, Google, and Apple like to sell the myth that the cloud is necessary (because processing power!) but it's simply not so. The real reason they say these things is to get your data.
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    Sure. that is probably very possible to have an offline solution and I would heavily prefer that too. Common smartphone hardware would certainly be enough and then some.

lazyjones 8y ago

> I remain astonished that so many people would choose to install an always-on, cloud-connected listening device in their most private spaces, with utterly no accountability or auditability. You mean after their smartphones and smart TVs and after putting many years’ worth of intimate details on FB despite all the discussions of Zuckerbergs attitude towards privacy? It doesn‘t surprise me at all.

raxxorrax 8y ago

I have 4 different Alexa devices on 2 different accounts. Developed an IoT-Solution for some devices. Was really fun and I really liked developing against Alexa. Amazon also has some neat solutions for user management and overall AWS services are pretty extensive. Would recommend. That said, I never ever would use Alexa or Alexa-capable devices at home and I doubt many users will use the IoT-functions of the devices in question. It is mostly for marketing to have a voice-interface. But the development was still very fun. > Especially since there's no technical reason for speech recognition to require cloud connectivity Never opened the boxes but I think Alexa devices are cheap w-lan capable microphones with very basic speakers and software. Having a lot of samples definitely helps for voice recognition. And you need some processing power, additionally to as much memory as you can press into that box.

dreamcompiler 8y ago
The kind of processing power needed for good-enough speaker-independent recognition at home has been cheap for several years. For speaker-dependent recognition, it's been cheap for decades. Amazon, Google, and Apple like to sell the myth that the cloud is necessary (because processing power!) but it's simply not so. The real reason they say these things is to get your data.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  Sure. that is probably very possible to have an offline solution and I would heavily prefer that too. Common smartphone hardware would certainly be enough and then some.