4 ms·
Couldn't they have implemented mute in software? There would be little outrage if they had (users don't care about the difference) but spy agencies (e.g. NSO Gr
by verbify 6y ago
Couldn't they have implemented mute in software? There would be little outrage if they had (users don't care about the difference) but spy agencies (e.g. NSO Group) would have a backdoor.
The fact that they used a hardware switch means they did it the right way.
By contrast my Logitech camera has a light to show when the camera is running - but the light can be disabled via their software which makes me uncomfortable with fully trusting the light.
- cmiles74 6y agoThis is a good point, I had suspected that the mute function was, in fact, implemented in software. That they went ahead and implemented in hardware is encouraging. Someone over there took the feature seriously enough to take it this far. I am sure it added cost over a software-only solution.
- jsight 6y agoThey could have, but I believe in the past they have claimed it to be hardware.
- sib 6y agoWhen we discussed this - at long length - during the original Echo development program, we consistently came to the conclusion that it should be hardware, not software, to maintain customer trust.
- Shared404 6y agoIMHO, This was the correct choice. No one I know would trust a software mute.
- sib 6y agoYeah... I thought it was pretty clear. While still hoping that we could build something (product & reputation) that users wouldn't want to turn off.
- mgdev 6y agoI know you. :) #doppler4lyfe
- sib 6y agoTook me a couple of minutes to figure out who you are :) Still proud of this product!
- sushisource 6y agoMy question for you is why not advertise this loudly? Or, maybe you did and no one cared? Because presumably it's a bit more costly per unit to do it this way, and very few people are ever going to understand and care. Not that I think you made the wrong choice, I think it's a good one, but I'm just curious how many consumers you thought would actually understand it, or how that information would be distributed
- sib 6y agoIt's a balancing act. We built it, to build trust. But talking about it too much would - we thought - highlight concerns and increase worries that we hoped (most) users wouldn't have. As an example, we were very clear and upfront in the original product detail page that users' voices went to the cloud, as we were not trying to hide that. Even so, some people tried to play a bit of "gotcha" and fear-mongering about the fact, as though we were not being transparent.
- pnathan 6y agoAppreciate that, a lot. Particularly with software auto-updates, a software mute is simply untrustworthy.
- sib 6y agoTrue. And in the early (internal) alpha days, false positives for wake word detection were quite high. So we felt the pain from eating our own dogwood; even though we spent huge amount of science / engineering resources on reducing those false positives, we knew it would never get to zero while maintaining acceptable true positive rates.
- criddell 6y agoAre you still involved? If so, is there some way I can request a feature to turn off all of the "by the way" and other follow-ups? I find them incredibly annoying. I usually answer "no and don't ask again" but it doesn't seem to understand.
- sib 6y agoI left some years ago. Yeah, not a huge fan of these "by the ways" but agree that having them would be less bad if there were a "don't ask again."
- DaniloDias 6y agoSoftware based mute means a compromise of the kernel would destroy the control provided by a software mute.