262
Amazon Mulls $5 to $10 monthly price tag for unprofitable Alexa service, AI revamp
(www.reuters.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Alexa has a tendency to give you the 'featured' product no matter how precisely and specifically you ask her for something. Even if you don't have to research and know exactly what you want, it's almost always easier to just go find your phone.
The real game changer for Alexa was always having a voice assistant that you can integrate with just about whatever you want that isn't tied to someone's phone. The idea of going into someone's house and just saying 'Alexa, turn on the kitchen lights' or 'Alexa, is it cold outside?' is where the Alexa magic lies, but Amazon never could figure out how to make that profitable on it's own, just doesn't contribute to the business case.
They are so dumb. Every house could use their products, they just need to charge normal prices. Everyone has light switches in every room. Imagine if most new houses came with "Alexa" switches and electric plugs.
They tried to make money on a few hobbyists who could set it up for themselves. They needed to go after the construction market. Charge half of what they were charging and sell a ton to every house in America. It's not an iPhone. It's a basic device to turn on the lights.
You're right that is a real loss. Really, an Alexa that didn't require a personalized amazon account could still be huge if they could figure out how not to have to justify the costs of running the servers. I think that unwillingness to let Alexa be just a voice assistant is the key roadblock. In a similar vein, Alexa for business could have been a really big deal too if they could have worked it out a bit faster but now I think interest has mostly died out before it had a chance to be adopted.
I'm not a huge fan of the company and I think it's a coin flip as to whether they would just completely screw it up, but I wonder what would have happened if someone like Crestron had taken a real interest instead of just half-assing an integration.
Oh boy a bunch of added expense to get the light switches swapped out with ones that don't spy on me.
You're right, but the reason that hasn't caught on is that talking to your "smart" house is stupid. You can't possibly program every possible command or situation, and telling Alexa to dim the lights in your kitchen to 40% is slower than using a dimmer switch. Actual smart homes are automated to the point where you don't need to talk to your room.
This. Running Home Assistant on literally anything stronger than a raspberryPi means you can automate damn near anything. And yea, it might be a pain in the ass to setup, but once it's done it basically runs itself.
And it's infinitely, overwhelmingly better than than asking Google or Alexa to do any of it.
I have a bunch of wireless light switches all over the house, it's stupidly convenient once you stop thinking they have to be stuck in thy wall.
Got a bunch of Google home minis I use for smart lights and music. Do you know if it's possible to jailbreak/degoogle them to use with my own setup?
Jailbreak no, but you can sync them with home assistant and run them through thst as a bridge. Opens up a lot more flexibility in how you want to use it.
Is it much different from Google home? Seems similar from what I could tell from a quick glance.
Think of it like a connective layer. You will still need to run your Home stuff through Google to function best, but you can then have it forward its actions and commands to fake listening devices on your network, that can make it work with anything you like, or do more than that.
It's powerful. I haven't delved fully into it yet, but it's also a great way to marry various smart home garbage together without being locked into a system. Use zigbee, z wave, matter, hue, and wifi blubs and devices all together seemlessly.