4 ms·

Your post is a bit ironic seeing as the Moto X does differentiate between voice (if you're good at imitating someone's voice you can set it off, but sending a c

by eghad 12y ago

Your post is a bit ironic seeing as the Moto X does differentiate between voice (if you're good at imitating someone's voice you can set it off, but sending a command is unlikely) and the power usage is not as bad as you assume (it's got average battery life but can easily make it through the day), but I will agree that the "Ok Google Now" being inflexible is a niggling point. The new Moto X is always listening as well, but allows you to change the trigger phrase via some magic they've worked out.

codemac 12y ago
> Your post is a bit ironic seeing as the [..] Ironic? I think you're saying that they're incorrect, that the power usage of the voice chip isn't that bad and that it can differentiate between voices but not command phrases. Which I think is a misunderstanding of what they're saying. The fact that you need an entirely custom chip to even make voice processing reasonable in power consumption shows that it's a domain-specific heavy calculation where silicon is the only place to speed it up. The new Moto X has a better domain-specific chip.
kajecounterhack 12y ago
I see, thanks. I didn't know these things about the Moto X. It's really a spectacular feat of engineering! But in the broader picture my point stands, he still made a number of false assumptions regarding voice tech ("right now it's good at x y z," and it's not by any means). It's as if he were imagining today's voice tech to be at the equivalent of capacitive touch screens when in reality it's not, they aren't quite invented yet and our current level of tech is still resistive. So of course sensitivity is poor and multi-touch hasn't been implemented. It's not design oversight, it's technological limitation. This isn't to say things aren't changing -- that's what the Moto X represents, improvement on the bleeding edge :)

by eghad 12y ago

codemac 12y ago

> Your post is a bit ironic seeing as the [..] Ironic? I think you're saying that they're incorrect, that the power usage of the voice chip isn't that bad and that it can differentiate between voices but not command phrases. Which I think is a misunderstanding of what they're saying. The fact that you need an entirely custom chip to even make voice processing reasonable in power consumption shows that it's a domain-specific heavy calculation where silicon is the only place to speed it up. The new Moto X has a better domain-specific chip.

kajecounterhack 12y ago

I see, thanks. I didn't know these things about the Moto X. It's really a spectacular feat of engineering! But in the broader picture my point stands, he still made a number of false assumptions regarding voice tech ("right now it's good at x y z," and it's not by any means). It's as if he were imagining today's voice tech to be at the equivalent of capacitive touch screens when in reality it's not, they aren't quite invented yet and our current level of tech is still resistive. So of course sensitivity is poor and multi-touch hasn't been implemented. It's not design oversight, it's technological limitation. This isn't to say things aren't changing -- that's what the Moto X represents, improvement on the bleeding edge :)