Is Google Home, Alexa, and Siri the future?

[Asclepias]

I've have been working in home automation as a sideline business and the possibilities are growing. Everyone knows about Siri. Apple is rumored to be working home automation. Amazon already has a device out called the Amazon Echo that uses a cloud based approach to automation. I use this a lot with some of my clients. it can do most of the things Siri does and better. it can be used to control lights, temperature, and even doors. Google is jumping into the market and I have heard they are going to be even better.

 

[Indeependent]

I've have been working in home automation as a sideline business and the possibilities are growing. Everyone knows about Siri. Apple is rumored to be working home automation. Amazon already has a device out called the Amazon Echo that uses a cloud based approach to automation. I use this a lot with some of my clients. it can do most of the things Siri does and better. it can be used to control lights, temperature, and even doors. Google is jumping into the market and I have heard they are going to be even better.

Google has unfortunately been rather a fail when it comes to hardware.
I would love to see Apple and Google stretching each other to the limit but Google just doesn't deliver on the hardware side.

 

[SixFoot]

I've have been working in home automation as a sideline business and the possibilities are growing. Everyone knows about Siri. Apple is rumored to be working home automation. Amazon already has a device out called the Amazon Echo that uses a cloud based approach to automation. I use this a lot with some of my clients. it can do most of the things Siri does and better. it can be used to control lights, temperature, and even doors. Google is jumping into the market and I have heard they are going to be even better.

I've considered integrating my home so that I can control most thing like lighting, when the coffee maker comes on, when the TV's, game consoles, and media players turn off, etc..

From what I've gleaned on Google, it would seem that a butt-ton of little additions would be needed in each outlet/light switch to achieve this, which equals out to more money than I can justify in a rational manner.

What is you approach to keeping the costs to a minimum?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Asclepias]

I've have been working in home automation as a sideline business and the possibilities are growing. Everyone knows about Siri. Apple is rumored to be working home automation. Amazon already has a device out called the Amazon Echo that uses a cloud based approach to automation. I use this a lot with some of my clients. it can do most of the things Siri does and better. it can be used to control lights, temperature, and even doors. Google is jumping into the market and I have heard they are going to be even better.

I've considered integrating my home so that I can control most thing like lighting, when the coffee maker comes on, when the TV's, game consoles, and media players turn off, etc..

From what I've gleaned on Google, it would seem that a butt-ton of little additions would be needed in each outlet/light switch to achieve this, which equals out to more money than I can justify in a rational manner.

What is you approach to keeping the costs to a minimum?

Thanks in advance!

The great thing about home automation is that you can be very selective about what you want to start out with and build piece by piece. I started with a smart plug. This was an electrical outlet that connected to my internal network. With Alexa I can just speak the command "alexa turn off my light" and the lamp by my bed will turn off/on via my voice. The cost can be pretty high but its all based on what you want to do. I prefer using the addition method. Each month i save for and purchase another device to use.

 

[SixFoot]

Regarding the question posed in the OP, the answer is a partial "yes."

Before the internet, if you wanted to know something, you physically looked it up at the library (You had to go to the library).

After the internet, if you want to know something, you physically look it up online (You have to "go" to your computer/tablet/phone).

Soon, if you want to know something, you'll just have to say what you want to know out loud - to Siri for example - and the machine will then "go" get it for you.

It's simply another in the list of reducing the amount of steps/work it takes for a human being to gain something.

And that's about that for now; a partial, but significant part of our future.

However, automation of the household, as convenient as that may be, will not hold a candle to what 3D printers are on the cusp of doing. 3D printers will revolutionize the world in a way that the internet could've only dreamed of in the last 30 years.

Yes, gadgets like Siri and the like are a definite "part" of our future, but "the" future, belongs to the incorporation of 3D printers into everyday lives.


This is all of course dependent on what one sees as "THE" future, as in the most significant next development.

 

[Asclepias]

Regarding the question posed in the OP, the answer is a partial "yes."

Before the internet, if you wanted to know something, you physically looked it up at the library (You had to go to the library).

After the internet, if you want to know something, you physically look it up online (You have to "go" to your computer/tablet/phone).

Soon, if you want to know something, you'll just have to say what you want to know out loud - to Siri for example - and the machine will then "go" get it for you.

It's simply another in the list of reducing the amount of steps/work it takes for a human being to gain something.

And that's about that for now; a partial, but significant part of our future.

However, automation of the household, as convenient as that may be, will not hold a candle to what 3D printers are on the cusp of doing. 3D printers will revolutionize the world in a way that the internet could've only dreamed of in the last 30 years.

Yes, gadgets like Siri and the like are a definite "part" of our future, but "the" future, belongs to the incorporation of 3D printers into everyday lives.


This is all of course dependent on what one sees as "THE" future, as in the most significant next development.

My daughter is in a advanced engineering class in high school. She was telling me about the things that were made using a 3D printer. I think the automation will be on par because eventually it will fade into the background and power everything like the Jetsons.

 

[SixFoot]

Regarding the question posed in the OP, the answer is a partial "yes."

Before the internet, if you wanted to know something, you physically looked it up at the library (You had to go to the library).

After the internet, if you want to know something, you physically look it up online (You have to "go" to your computer/tablet/phone).

Soon, if you want to know something, you'll just have to say what you want to know out loud - to Siri for example - and the machine will then "go" get it for you.

It's simply another in the list of reducing the amount of steps/work it takes for a human being to gain something.

And that's about that for now; a partial, but significant part of our future.

However, automation of the household, as convenient as that may be, will not hold a candle to what 3D printers are on the cusp of doing. 3D printers will revolutionize the world in a way that the internet could've only dreamed of in the last 30 years.

Yes, gadgets like Siri and the like are a definite "part" of our future, but "the" future, belongs to the incorporation of 3D printers into everyday lives.


This is all of course dependent on what one sees as "THE" future, as in the most significant next development.

My daughter is in a advanced engineering class in high school. She was telling me about the things that were made using a 3D printer. I think the automation will be on par because eventually it will fade into the background and power everything like the Jetsons.

Imagine when someone figures out how to recycle household waste (organic and inorganic alike) with 3D printers. And now that we're on the topic, I love the idea of automated trash recycling - which we could easily assume will follow shortly after.

Good, amazing, things are coming, so long as we as a species can manage not to fark it all up in the meantime! lol

 

[P@triot]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

 

[Asclepias]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

The Apple Android thing is nonsense. When you open up something for 3rd party innovation you automatically lessen security. Its a trade off most are willing to deal with in the face of advancing. However in Apple you are subject to limitations that stifle outside innovation.

 

[P@triot]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that they produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

The Apple Android thing is nonsense. When you open up something for 3rd party innovation you automatically lessen security. Its a trade off most are willing to deal with in the face of advancing. However in Apple you are subject to limitations that stifle outside innovation.

But that's why you get a secure, stable environment. And it's not a 3rd party issue when Google's Android platform has 55,000 security holes in it. That's just plain idiocy by Google. Like Facebook, they are more interested in rushing products out the door at warp speed to be the "first" than they are in provide a secure, stable platform for their users. Apple will actually delay releases to get it right.

 

[Asclepias]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that they produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

The Apple Android thing is nonsense. When you open up something for 3rd party innovation you automatically lessen security. Its a trade off most are willing to deal with in the face of advancing. However in Apple you are subject to limitations that stifle outside innovation.

But that's why you get a secure, stable environment. And it's not a 3rd party issue when Google's Android platform has 55,000 security holes in it. That's just plain idiocy by Google. Like Facebook, they are more interested in rushing products out the door at warp speed to be the "first" than they are in provide a secure, stable platform for their users. Apple will actually delay releases to get it right.

Youre getting confused. Android is an extremely secure environment. They have opened it up for 3rd party developers. Apple is not more secure. They are just less open.

 

[P@triot]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that they produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

The Apple Android thing is nonsense. When you open up something for 3rd party innovation you automatically lessen security. Its a trade off most are willing to deal with in the face of advancing. However in Apple you are subject to limitations that stifle outside innovation.

But that's why you get a secure, stable environment. And it's not a 3rd party issue when Google's Android platform has 55,000 security holes in it. That's just plain idiocy by Google. Like Facebook, they are more interested in rushing products out the door at warp speed to be the "first" than they are in provide a secure, stable platform for their users. Apple will actually delay releases to get it right.

Youre getting confused. Android is an extremely secure environment. They have opened it up for 3rd party developers. Apple is not more secure. They are just less open.

I don't think it has anything to do with 3rd parties any more than Microsoft Windows endless security flaws have anything to do with 3rd parties (in the overwhelming majority of cases any way):

"While Symantec neglects to reach a firm conclusion regarding which mobile OS is the most secure, the firm definitely seems to favor iOS more often than not. It says iOS’ app screening procedure plays a big role in the operating system’s security, and it also says the platform’s architecture makes it better at resisting malware attacks and data integrity attacks. It also says iOS offers better encryption and more secure access control for apps."

iOS vs. Android: Which mobile OS is more secure?

 

[Asclepias]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that they produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

The Apple Android thing is nonsense. When you open up something for 3rd party innovation you automatically lessen security. Its a trade off most are willing to deal with in the face of advancing. However in Apple you are subject to limitations that stifle outside innovation.

But that's why you get a secure, stable environment. And it's not a 3rd party issue when Google's Android platform has 55,000 security holes in it. That's just plain idiocy by Google. Like Facebook, they are more interested in rushing products out the door at warp speed to be the "first" than they are in provide a secure, stable platform for their users. Apple will actually delay releases to get it right.

Youre getting confused. Android is an extremely secure environment. They have opened it up for 3rd party developers. Apple is not more secure. They are just less open.

I don't think it has anything to do with 3rd parties any more than Microsoft Windows endless security flaws have anything to do with 3rd parties (in the overwhelming majority of cases any way):

"While Symantec neglects to reach a firm conclusion regarding which mobile OS is the most secure, the firm definitely seems to favor iOS more often than not. It says iOS’ app screening procedure plays a big role in the operating system’s security, and it also says the platform’s architecture makes it better at resisting malware attacks and data integrity attacks. It also says iOS offers better encryption and more secure access control for apps."

iOS vs. Android: Which mobile OS is more secure?

Thats different from saying Android is less secure than apple. Apps are not the operating system. They are pieces of software that use the operating system. If android had a closed model like Apple they would be slower and hence more secure. However, all the amazing apps that Apple has to copy in order to keep up with Android would never happen.

 

[P@triot]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that they produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

The Apple Android thing is nonsense. When you open up something for 3rd party innovation you automatically lessen security. Its a trade off most are willing to deal with in the face of advancing. However in Apple you are subject to limitations that stifle outside innovation.

But that's why you get a secure, stable environment. And it's not a 3rd party issue when Google's Android platform has 55,000 security holes in it. That's just plain idiocy by Google. Like Facebook, they are more interested in rushing products out the door at warp speed to be the "first" than they are in provide a secure, stable platform for their users. Apple will actually delay releases to get it right.

Youre getting confused. Android is an extremely secure environment. They have opened it up for 3rd party developers. Apple is not more secure. They are just less open.

I don't think it has anything to do with 3rd parties any more than Microsoft Windows endless security flaws have anything to do with 3rd parties (in the overwhelming majority of cases any way):

"While Symantec neglects to reach a firm conclusion regarding which mobile OS is the most secure, the firm definitely seems to favor iOS more often than not. It says iOS’ app screening procedure plays a big role in the operating system’s security, and it also says the platform’s architecture makes it better at resisting malware attacks and data integrity attacks. It also says iOS offers better encryption and more secure access control for apps."

iOS vs. Android: Which mobile OS is more secure?

Thats different from saying Android is less secure than apple. Apps are not the operating system. They are pieces of software that use the operating system. If android had a closed model like Apple they would be slower and hence more secure. However, all the amazing apps that Apple has to copy in order to keep up with Android would never happen.

There was one thing out of five there regarding apps. Apple has better encryption, a better architecture, better screening procedures, etc.

And by the way....Apple only makes about 10 apps total for the iOS platform. There are over 2 million available apps in their apps store. That is endless innovation from endless "3rd parties".

 

[Fueri]

Coincidentally I just ordered the new echo dot today, which is going to be released on the 20th. This gen 2 is like 50 bucks, although it's speaker isn't as robust as the full sized echo.

I also got a few Lutron dimmers with additional remotes to control some outdoor lighting that the wife wants to be able to pop on from her car on the way home at night and retrofit the living room lighting system.

I also got a lutron bridge to control the dimmers and others we're planning on adding in the bedroom and bathroom, simply because the bridge was tossed in as part of a package for 30 bucks, although that may end up being redundant with the echo.

When I get that all in I'll decide whether or not to add a secondary hub, such as wink, that covers more devices, such as the door locks, garage door, driveway gate and security system and floodlights, as well as get more dots to put in various places around the house for more expanded voice control.

To the point of the thread I think these things are great for people that are comfortable with technology but if they don't know how to properly set them up and use them effectively it can be a bunch of junk.

I read an article when I first started looking into retrofitting my house that indicated that smart systems were not yet a selling point for homes, which I find hard to believe, but the apparent reason was that people still aren't quite comfortable with them. Maybe with these new technologies, such as the echo, wink etc, coming out to make it vastly simpler that will change.

Personally, I love this shit. Always have, always will.

 

[Asclepias]

Coincidentally I just ordered the new echo dot today, which is going to be released on the 20th. This gen 2 is like 50 bucks, although it's speaker isn't as robust as the full sized echo.

I also got a few Lutron dimmers with additional remotes to control some outdoor lighting that the wife wants to be able to pop on from her car on the way home at night and retrofit the living room lighting system.

I also got a lutron bridge to control the dimmers and others we're planning on adding in the bedroom and bathroom, simply because the bridge was tossed in as part of a package for 30 bucks, although that may end up being redundant with the echo.

When I get that all in I'll decide whether or not to add a secondary hub, such as wink, that covers more devices, such as the door locks, garage door, driveway gate and security system and floodlights, as well as get more dots to put in various places around the house for more expanded voice control.

To the point of the thread I think these things are great for people that are comfortable with technology but if they don't know how to properly set them up and use them effectively it can be a bunch of junk.

I read an article when I first started looking into retrofitting my house that indicated that smart systems were not yet a selling point for homes, which I find hard to believe, but the apparent reason was that people still aren't quite comfortable with them. Maybe with these new technologies, such as the echo, wink etc, coming out to make it vastly simpler that will change.

Personally, I love this shit. Always have, always will.

I've been working on this stuff since X10 products were out. The only thing I find is that the reality of having automation and real life sometimes differs. This voice command stuff with Alexa, Siri, etc is a game changer. Now I can just turn my lights back on if I dont want them to turn off at 10pm by using my voice.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I've have been working in home automation as a sideline business and the possibilities are growing. Everyone knows about Siri. Apple is rumored to be working home automation. Amazon already has a device out called the Amazon Echo that uses a cloud based approach to automation. I use this a lot with some of my clients. it can do most of the things Siri does and better. it can be used to control lights, temperature, and even doors. Google is jumping into the market and I have heard they are going to be even better.

It appears to be a given this is the future. It is The Jetsons in real life nearly. All devices in a home controllable by a phone or central control pad or pads. The only drawback is of course hacking. It will be just another entry point into a home for hackers. With touchscreens advancing it may soon be possible, if not already, for a smart hacker to use enough pixels on a screen to serve as a reverse camera and record everything that happens in front of them in a home. And if say every 3rd pixel were used you may not be able to see a difference in the picture you are looking at on screen.

But automated houses and by extension automated lives are partly here and will become the norm.

 

[Fueri]

Coincidentally I just ordered the new echo dot today, which is going to be released on the 20th. This gen 2 is like 50 bucks, although it's speaker isn't as robust as the full sized echo.

I also got a few Lutron dimmers with additional remotes to control some outdoor lighting that the wife wants to be able to pop on from her car on the way home at night and retrofit the living room lighting system.

I also got a lutron bridge to control the dimmers and others we're planning on adding in the bedroom and bathroom, simply because the bridge was tossed in as part of a package for 30 bucks, although that may end up being redundant with the echo.

When I get that all in I'll decide whether or not to add a secondary hub, such as wink, that covers more devices, such as the door locks, garage door, driveway gate and security system and floodlights, as well as get more dots to put in various places around the house for more expanded voice control.

To the point of the thread I think these things are great for people that are comfortable with technology but if they don't know how to properly set them up and use them effectively it can be a bunch of junk.

I read an article when I first started looking into retrofitting my house that indicated that smart systems were not yet a selling point for homes, which I find hard to believe, but the apparent reason was that people still aren't quite comfortable with them. Maybe with these new technologies, such as the echo, wink etc, coming out to make it vastly simpler that will change.

Personally, I love this shit. Always have, always will.

I've been working on this stuff since X10 products were out. The only thing I find is that the reality of having automation and real life sometimes differs. This voice command stuff with Alexa, Siri, etc is a game changer. Now I can just turn my lights back on if I dont want them to turn off at
10pm by using my voice.

Yep, I bought my first security camera system from X10, I'm thinking that was at least 10 years ago, maybe more.

The voice commands look cool. We'll see how it all comes together. I figure if it works as advertised I'll expand in a modular fashion based on what seems the most logical or just cool. They're new systems for me, so I'll see how they work for me and go from there.

 

[Asclepias]

I've have been working in home automation as a sideline business and the possibilities are growing. Everyone knows about Siri. Apple is rumored to be working home automation. Amazon already has a device out called the Amazon Echo that uses a cloud based approach to automation. I use this a lot with some of my clients. it can do most of the things Siri does and better. it can be used to control lights, temperature, and even doors. Google is jumping into the market and I have heard they are going to be even better.

It appears to be a given this is the future. It is The Jetsons in real life nearly. All devices in a home controllable by a phone or central control pad or pads. The only drawback is of course hacking. It will be just another entry point into a home for hackers. With touchscreens advancing it may soon be possible, if not already, for a smart hacker to use enough pixels on a screen to serve as a reverse camera and record everything that happens in front of them in a home. And if say every 3rd pixel were used you may not be able to see a difference in the picture you are looking at on screen.

But automated houses and by extension automated lives are partly here and will become the norm.

The automation technology communicates via the IP network which has proven security features you can implement. A professional setting this up will keep out all but the most determined of hackers. Of course the average person trying to set up a secure network will be more vulnerable. On the other end (the cloud) you are trusting that they have these same measures in place. Typically in such cloud networks dealing with customers, the security measures are so extreme that it borders on ridiculous for an admin to make simple changes.

 

[SixFoot]

I can't speak about Amazon, but the problem with Google is that produce the least secure products in the world (and that includes Microsoft Windows). At one point I read that one version of Android had 55,000 security holes in it. Everyone I know that had one complained about the bugs. I would never trust anything in my home to Google.

For me - Apple is the only one with a proven track record for security (and stability for that matter). They only solidified that view when they stood up to the government over the encryption on iPhones.

The Apple Android thing is nonsense. When you open up something for 3rd party innovation you automatically lessen security. Its a trade off most are willing to deal with in the face of advancing. However in Apple you are subject to limitations that stifle outside innovation.

This is a perfect example of why I buy Vanilla Android devices only. No bloatware, no special update packages, etc.. Operator error is responsible for 99% of malicious attacks on any given personal device.

I'd like to see anyone without a quantum computer decrypt my Nexus 10 within their lifetime.