Apple VP Phil Schiller Implies Voice-Activated Smart Speakers Could Benefit From a Screen

[macpanzer]

Brilliant. Here's a mockup.
View attachment 698686

Yes! Build it with a small motor in the base to turn the screen automatically towards the direction from where the persons voice comes from when it replies and it will be awesome.

 

[djgamble]

Here's a tip, Phil: fix Siri first, make grandiose comments later.

For me the only way to fix Siri (and voice control in general) is to remove it. Recently Apple made voice control an optional feature (so I no longer accidentally activate it when trying to unlock my phone). I just don't talk to electronic devices... sorry!

Searching? I do proper boolean searches. Didn't do that law degree for nothing... I know how to do boolean searches and PREFER them!

 

[RC-Mac]

I predict the name will be something like: "Apple Home"!

Maybe Eden?

 

[trifid]

Of course you need a screen when Siri is slow, dumb and inaccurate.

And btw, did he really bring up a completely out of context nonsensical gaming comparison to AI speech? My gosh is Apple really out of touch with reality.

 

[RC-Mac]

2017 really IS the POGO (Put Out Or Get Out) year for Apple.

A LOT of smoke and mirrors last year and this year and diversionary tactics employed.

Samsung have sold and are outselling the iPhone. Google is winning the AI war. MS winning the laptop war and Apple still having a go with their old iPads. But with tablet sales falling globally and Apple neglecting their original Mac market - 2017 has to be their year to prove they've not gone laz(ier) and actually bring something out that will make them stand out from the competition instead of just charity meals and RED paint schemes. Their shares keep rising despite years of stagnation. Will the name and glory years hold out on that alone? I say not. 2017 - Apple's POGO year. You read it here first.

("Yeah, right. Gerroff!"-MR Ed.)

Apple certainly seems to be doing a lot of following, instead of leading. They need to start shipping revolutionary instead of evolutionary like they used to do.

 

[trifid]

Apple certainly seems to be doing a lot of following, instead of leading. They need to start shipping revolutionary instead of evolutionary like they used to do.

True, I remember Apple used to lead, and everyone else was behind 1-2 years and trying to catch up. Now it's the inverse.

 

[DUIduckSAUCE]

It will be magical.

 

[cousintim]

And a laptop could benefit from a touchscreen.

 

[JaySoul]

For once, I actually agree with Phil!

I like the idea of Google Home/Alexa etc. But not having a screen is annoying. It would be nice to be able to actually have manual input, not just voice.

But yes, it would drive the price up. It's Apple.

 

[TheTruth101]

I can not believe it takes so much effort to do things at least half as good as Steve Jobs did.

One of the best inventions has been Target Disk Mode... it makes life so much easier! Transferring application, diagnosing disks.

Jobs was all about common sense, about being practical. These people are about "bringing random features that may sounds cool and... lets see". No direction.

 

[rp2011]

I agree wholeheartedly with him. When the photo of the Alexa with the screen was leaked I said it was a good idea. It looked ugly, but the idea is right. Having visual confirmation when you need it is important. And many times you need to follow up a query and then need to pull out your phone?

He's absolutely right.

 

[ElQben]

First, the Siri kiosk gets a screen. Then a bigger, touch-screen. Then a stow-away keyboard and mouse. Then a version of iOS that can replace your desktop

 

[nfortna]

maybe this smart speaker will lead to Siri finally being able to control my third-party music apps

 

[Apple Corps]

Control of "home" devices should be via app only. Embedded screens just increase cost, energy usage, MTBF, and require you to be physically present wherever the device is. Meanwhile, the iMac, mini, and MP....languish. Oh that's right, Tim says we don't need computers anymore.

How does an imbedded screen increase the MTBF?

 

[jdawgnoonan]

I hope that Schiller realizes that both Apple Maps and Siri are both second rate products. I love iOS but it would be a better product if Siri and Apple Maps could easily be replaced with Google Now and Google Maps.

 

[Icaras]

I can appreciate your post and I Agree primarily with what you're saying, but, if Apple lost 70% of its net revenue from the fail of an iPhone, they would not be able to likely stay in business. Especially when you would have investors dumping left and right and considering there are other categories that directly supplement to the iPhone, which the Apple Watch and AirPods could not exist without the iPhone (Airpods primarily are used with iPhone). So if the iPhone dies, other products will follow suit. It Would be complete anarchy and chaos across Apple's product line if that were to ever happen.

I couldn't disagree more. Apple's services business alone in last quarter raked in $7 billion in revenue. Just that one segment is worth more than Netflix many times over. Even if Apple stopped selling hardware altogether, they could continue services through other company products and still bring in billions.

And that's the brilliance of Apple having their hand in all sorts of businesses, from computers, to mobile devices, to fashionable wearables, to health, fitness, cloud services, movies, TV shows, books, apps, routers, cables, headphones, accessories, AI, and soon to be...cars. If one business fails, they have much to fall back on. And I don't think its a straight domino effect like you say. If the iPhone was solely dependent upon itself, I would more likely agree. But it isn't. The iPhone is at the heart of what is the stickiest form of any consumer centric eco system packaged and sold from any corporation on the planet. Taking down one product is one thing, but breaking up an entire eco system of interconnected products and services is an entirely different ball game. And whoever here thinks iPhone is Apple's endgame should really open up their imaginations.

People love to criticize Apple for getting into all these new businesses, like wearables, fashion, health, cars, and now with original TV content and AR. They cry that Apple has somehow "lost their way" and that they've abandoned their core audiences. And I don't disagree there is merit to that (speaking as part of one of those core audiences who got into Apple in the mid 2000s), but I see Apple doing what any successful company would and should do: adapt and evolve while strengthening that eco system with each and every new product. As long as they keep doing that, they will remain in growth for decades to come.

 

[name99]

A display doesn't make sense on Google Home/Alexa type devices. If you're close enough to use a display, it's not really an omnipresent house wide product and you might as well use a phone. If it's connected to a TV, that's still fairly limited.

I don't think these comments imply Apple would make a device like Alexa with a screen. He said that a screen makes sense in certain situations. For an omnipresent household device I don't see how a screen makes sense unless it's somehow magically projecting things in front of you from wherever you are.

Well the people who actually SHIP these devices seem to disagree with you (and with the crowd above sho think it'smore important to complain about Siri than to consider the issue on its merits)"
https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/06/why-the-next-amazon-echo-and-dot-will-have-a-screen/
[doublepost=1494107174][/doublepost]

Imagine this - a smart speaker that is connected via iCloud to all of your other Apple devices (AirPods already do that). So if a result of your voice query requires a visual, it can deliver it to any of your other Apple devices with a screen in your proximity. If you are in your living room, that can be your TV (via Apple TV) or your iMac, the iPad in your kitchen can display a recipe or your iPhone can display directions as you leave your home. The next level of continuity + really leveraging the ecosystem. And no need for yet another device with a dedicated screen, when all your other devices already have one.

Why make the device less functional? Screens cost very little these days (especially when you don't have the high-end phone constraints of wanting it to be the thinnest, lightest, lowest power technology imaginable), and part of the point of a device like this is that it's the device that's next to you while your iPad or iPhone is upstairs.

The point of technology is not to create the minimal possible unit of functionality, it is to create the maximum possible unit of utility. It's bad enough when Apple plays this game mindlessly bye refusing, god knows why, to ship things like Weather or Calculator on the iPad.

 

[ElQben]

I can appreciate your post and I Agree primarily with what you're saying, but, if Apple lost 70% of its net revenue from the fail of an iPhone, they would not be able to likely stay in business. Especially when you would have investors dumping left and right and considering there are other categories that directly supplement to the iPhone, which the Apple Watch and AirPods could not exist without the iPhone (Airpods primarily are used with iPhone). So if the iPhone dies, other products will follow suit. It Would be complete anarchy and chaos across Apple's product line if that were to ever happen.

The iPhone is so entrenched, that a lot of people don't even call it anything but a phone anymore . A lot of people (unbelievably) say: "Do you have a phone charger?", as if no other phone could exist. Regardless of whatever the competition does in the next decade, 30% of Americans will be using any iPhone that is released, and it will be the most affluent 30%. And IMessage seals the deal. Apple has completely captured an entire generation. I predict it will take at least 10 years for the iPhone's importance to wane...and that's different than sales figures...as people will surely hold on to their iPhones a long long time now. I see people using old iPhones with cracked screens...just to avoid Android.

 

[Vjosullivan]

Haven't they already trademarked Home Hub?

In that case, call it Home Wife.

 

[npmacuser5]

The screen is called an App. The devices App works well when not within voice range or you need a screen. Example, searching for a playlist or song without interrupting what's playing. Tell me why does a speaker voice assistant need a screen?

 

[citysnaps]

The screen is called an App. The devices App works well when not within voice range or you need a screen. Example, searching for a playlist or song without interrupting what's playing. Tell me why does a speaker voice assistant need a screen?

"Siri, show me a list of movies playing in San Francisco."

"Siri, display my home's Outdoor Cameras 1, 2, and 3"

"Siri, display a map of home interior lights that are On"

"Siri, show me a schedule of CalTrain departures leaving San Francisco."

"Siri, display my Tesla's status"

And on and on...

 

[doelcm82]

The screen is called an App. The devices App works well when not within voice range or you need a screen. Example, searching for a playlist or song without interrupting what's playing. Tell me why does a speaker voice assistant need a screen?

It needs a screen to be more than just a speaker voice assistant.

 

[44267547]

I couldn't disagree more. Apple's services business alone in last quarter raked in $7 billion in revenue. Just that one segment is worth more than Netflix many times over. Even if Apple stopped selling hardware altogether, they could continue services through other company products and still bring in billions.

And that's the brilliance of Apple having their hand in all sorts of businesses, from computers, to mobile devices, to fashionable wearables, to health, fitness, cloud services, movies, TV shows, books, apps, routers, cables, headphones, accessories, AI, and soon to be...cars. If one business fails, they have much to fall back on. And I don't think its a straight domino effect like you say. If the iPhone was solely dependent upon itself, I would more likely agree. But it isn't. The iPhone is at the heart of what is the stickiest form of any consumer centric eco system packaged and sold from any corporation on the planet. Taking down one product is one thing, but breaking up an entire eco system of interconnected products and services is an entirely different ball game. And whoever here thinks iPhone is Apple's endgame should really open up their imaginations.

People love to criticize Apple for getting into all these new businesses, like wearables, fashion, health, cars, and now with original TV content and AR. They cry that Apple has somehow "lost their way" and that they've abandoned their core audiences. And I don't disagree there is merit to that (speaking as part of one of those core audiences who got into Apple in the mid 2000s), but I see Apple doing what any successful company would and should do: adapt and evolve while strengthening that eco system with each and every new product. As long as they keep doing that, they will remain in growth for decades to come.

Agree...to disagree extensively.

I see what you're saying how Apple has invested into other avenues within the company aSide from the iPhone. But I think you're also not mitigating circumstances that if the iPhone were to completely fall off the charts, which will not happen, can you imagine the backlash from investors dumping shares and what would happen to the stock? Forget about the extra revenue that they have generated or what they could fallback on purportedly, but that doesn't guarantee anything of a $43 billion dollar companies future. Apple intentionally made products surrounding the iPhone, which hosts the Apple Watch and Airpods. Granted they are superflorous items, but you see Apple trying to build a future behind the iPhone, acting as the host.

For the record, being the Apple supporter I am,
I completely condone Apple for stepping into the wearable market and hopefully branching into the Home automation field. Apple isn't the same
Company they were 20 years ago and changes are necessary for this company to be dynamic, to evolve with technology as it evolves.

Where I disagree with you is completely asinine to believe that this company could survive soley without the iPhone and "Other" sales floating his company long term. Not happening. From a marketing standpoint, the iPhone is king when it comes to what Apple wants the consumer to see over any other product. Apple has plenty of reserve, but even if it were possible, I question how long they would last ultimately.

And you mentioned the Apple car in your previous post. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple car is nothing but smoke and mirrors and they were never making a car, perhaps they might be preparing to implement software into other vehicles, there is no concrete information confirming the Apple car. And even if there was, there no guarantees with the overall shaky autonomous market. Anyone putting hopes into this company for a futuristic Apple car, it's nothing more than a ideation at this point.

 

[npmacuser5]

"Siri, show me a list of movies playing in San Francisco."

"Siri, display Outdoor Cameras 1, 2, and 3"

"Siri, display a map of home interior lights that are On"

Why not do those tasks on an IOS or a Mac. That would be like, hey Siri, read me the entire article on?
Then view on a screen you need to walk over to see. My experience with Echo, Awesome for single questions. Like how old is ? Or today's weather or what's on my shopping list, as examples.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Enough for them to make a bite, not enough to take leadership. That's what apple likes to do now though; leverage their ecosystem rather than product differentiation.

BMW will never sell as well as Chevy.

So, did you actually have a point?