If that's the main criticism of Alexa, then I'm rushing out to buy one immediately.
I'm not interested in an always-on voice activated device so that I can ask it rarely asked complicated questions. I'm interested in how well it understands my voice, and how many day-to-day chores it can help with.
The ability to understand you involves understanding language. You have to understand the world to understand language. Google built a 70 node knowledge graph that drives their understanding of the world which enabled them to create a intelligent device. Or something that is more revolutionary versus Echo is more evolutionary.
I have both and purchased the Echo when first launched. The Google Home amazes me every day.
So with Home you say play Madonna song Sean Penn movie and live to tell starts playing.
Echo has a command of "goes like this". Never used it. But everyday Google figures out something.
Our understanding of the world allow us to talk in a condensed form as humans can infer a lot.
Google is doing the same so more and more I talk to Google Home in condensed format.
It is so early with all of this but Google has a incredible foundation. The future is going to be incredible.
Seconding this, Google voice search (on my Nexus phone) is incredibly good. If you've spent the last 18 years expecting valid results from Google searches even when you dump a bunch of vaguely related words into the text box then Google's voice search gives you the same experience.
I could be wrong, but isn't the voice search merely a voice-to-text layer across the top of the normal text search? My old BlackBerry had a search feature and voice command. To this day I think it is slightly below the quality of Google Home (played with it at a family member's home; don't own one myself).
My daughter does voice searches, asking it to display pictures of various pokemon. "Show me pictures of the pokemon XXXX". These things have crazy names, and she doesn't have very clear speech, but it always gets them right. It is changing it's dictionary of probable words you will say, based on what words you have already said.
If she unclearly said, "Show me pictures of Absol", it would fail miserably. But if she says "Show me pictures of the pokemon Absol", it kicks butt.
So I would say it's more than a voice to text layer on top of the normal text search.
But do they have enough incentives ? A good business model to be willing to offer it for almost free for people ? The will to push it as hard as Amazon does ? It doesn't seem so.
Yeah, Google is only selling Google Home for $50 less than the Amazon Echo, and only have 87% smartphone market share for Android where Google Now can be installed, and only over a billion people using the Google Play marketplace. They have no hope of competing with Amazon in this space.
Maybe not as heavily as Amazon (literally adding items to your Amazon cart for items you need), but indirectly, they do. Since Google Home is integrated with all Google products (calendar, keep, maps, Youtube, chromecast, Android and more to come), this keeps the user in the Google eco-system.
I had fun asking Google, Siri, and Alexa, "is Jesus God's son?" Siri brings back web searches. Alexa says that she's sorry but she doesn't understand the question (even though the card in the app shows she heard it correctly). Google brings back the theology of Jesus from a muslim point of view. It then reads it out loud. The wikipedia entry goes so far as to argue against the Trinitarian doctrine.
Had fun with that last one during the Holidays at each of my conservative Christian families. I thought it was hilarious.
And when I said it, Google heard "how many inches per second is Sarah parcak fortnight"
Regardless, why do these anecdotes have to do with the article's argument that "Amazon is building the operating system of the home — its name is Alexa"?
Google can.
Alexa can tell me how many sides a hexagon has. But cannot tell me the name of a six sided polygon.