4 ms·
> You call it Alexa, not Echo. The box says Echo, but you will never interact with it as such. Can you imagine Steve Jobs saying: "here's our big feature for iO
by nkozyra 11y ago
> You call it Alexa, not Echo. The box says Echo, but you will never interact with it as such. Can you imagine Steve Jobs saying: "here's our big feature for iOS 5, it's called Siri, but you'll interact with it by calling it Yoko"?
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
The product is the iphone, the human-interaction agent is Siri
The product is the echo, the human-interaction agent is Alexa
- tsurantino 11y agoIsn't that kind of an irrelevant distinction if Echo is mainly designed around that one feature/gateway to features?
- aaronbrethorst 11y agoHave you used an Echo? The product and the human-interaction agent are clearly intended to be the one and the same. You don't buy an Echo that comes with Alexa; Alexa is the whole point of the Echo.
- nkozyra 11y agoYou could essentially do the same through Siri - in either event, the separation of the entities still makes sense. I don't personally understand the need to humanize interactive services and apps, but I guess Siri made that appealing.
- aaronbrethorst 11y agoBecause you're communicating with a device that refers to itself in the first person. Anthropomorphization is inevitable. It's not like this is new, either. 2001 comes to mind immediately, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples that predate HAL.
- pbreit 11y agoThe different names seemed odd to me at first but it's not that big of a deal. I presume Amazon thought about this. An slways-on, self contained voice controlled speaker is an entirely different experience than Siri.