Google Assistant Gaining Support for Multiple Requests and Continued Conversations, Will Be Able to Make Phone Calls for You in the Future

[robbyx]

Well they are taking their time. They haven't introduced anything like what Google is doing. Do you think they don't see what the competition is doing? Do you think they don't have ideas on similar features? Of course they do, but there are challenges to implementing such things without sacrificing privacy. They also likely want to see how some of these things pan out with consumers before putting some weight behind it. My only point is that I am not clamoring for it and I would rather Apple not rush something new to the market just to compete with Google Assistant. It isn't worth it.

You’re being extremely shortsighted. I’ve been an Apple customer for 35 years and investor for almost as long. Watching Apple fumble and deliver lazy, half-baked products is very concerning to me as both a fan and very happy investor. Apple pioneered the voice assistant and in a few short years has become the laughing stock in that department. Voice driven user interfaces will be the primary means of interacting with machines in a few short years.

Apple most certainly should be “rushing to compete with Google”. Did you say the same thing about Microsoft when Apple launched the iPhone? That Microsoft should take a wait and see approach? Guess what, they did and they are irrelevant in mobile today. Is that what you want for Apple five years from now when everyone is talking to their devices?

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Apple honestly needs to can Siri and reinvent it. Similar to how they canned mobile Me and introduced iCloud.. Google assistant is literally the only thing android has over iPhone.
Now granted. It’s going to take 2 years for all androids to even get this functionality that they introduced today... so Apple has 2 years to catch up lol

Its on iOS as well, they have said all of this is coming to the Google Assistant app this fall

 

[DNichter]

You’re being extremely shortsighted. I’ve been an Apple customer for 35 years and investor for almost as long. Watching Apple fumble and deliver lazy, half-baked products is very concerning to me as both a fan and very happy investor. Apple pioneered the voice assistant and in a few short years has become the laughing stock in that department. Voice driven user interfaces will be the primary means of interacting with machines in a few short years.

Apple most certainly should be “rushing to compete with Google”. Did you say the same thing about Microsoft when Apple launched the iPhone? That Microsoft should take a wait and see approach? Guess what, they did and they are irrelevant in mobile today. Is that what you want for Apple five years from now when everyone is talking to their devices?

I understand the importance of this market for Apple, but I would still rather them take their time and make sure they can deliver solid features without infringing on anyone's privacy in the process. If you don't agree, that's totally fine. If Apple didn't have any voice assistant today, then yes I would probably say they are far behind, but they are only some improvements/features away from being comparable. I certainly don't think being behind in one area means impending doom for the iOS platform. They'll likely introduce similar features and improvements to Siri either this WWDC or next.

 

[robbyx]

I understand the importance of this market for Apple, but I would still rather them take their time and make sure they can deliver solid features without infringing on anyone's privacy in the process. If you don't agree, that's totally fine. If Apple didn't have any voice assistant today, then yes I would probably say they are far behind, but they are only some improvements/features away from being comparable. I certainly don't think being behind in one area means impending doom for the iOS platform. They'll likely introduce similar features and improvements to Siri either this WWDC or next.

I don’t agree at all. Apple’s stance on privacy is not only outdated but illogical in a connected world. You make it sound like Apple could easily enable Siri to do what Google just demonstrated with Assistant. Fat chance.

Privacy. What are you so concerned about? Who cares if some server knows where you like to eat and what you buy at the grocery store? You’re going to be marketed to. That isn’t going to change. Wouldn’t you rather get targeted ads that are relevant?

Someone else in this thread said “Google will never get my medical records!” Again, shortsighted. A large data set of medical information will allow the machine to help with treatment. The more it knows, the more it can help. If I had some terrible illness, I’d be happy that the machine managed to find some treatment my doctor and I had never heard of thanks to the large data set it was able to mine.

As for assistants, the same holds true. An assistant can’t help you if it knows nothing about you. This is true in the real world as much as it is with AI assistants. I know people who have personal assistants. These assistants would not be able to do their jobs, much less do them well, without knowing specific details and having access to information about their employers. This is just logical. I think of it as assistant vs server (as in waiter). An assistant knows enough about me to assist me, to offer suggests based on insights and knowledge he/she possesses. A server knows nothing about me, so he or she can only respond to my requests.

Apple has painted itself into a corner with its privacy dogma. I think there’s a generational component to this issue as well. While I’m generally happy with Tim Cook, he’s no visionary. He’s done a great job of shepherding Apple across an industry-wide technological plateau but now he’s in serious danger of pulling a Microsoft and becoming irrelevant in the years to come.

I don’t know how old you are, but I’m guessing you’re not in your 20s or even 30s. Younger people, from what I’ve observed, don’t share the kinds of privacy concerns that Cook expresses. They are the connected generation. They rent rooms in their house by the night to strangers. They ride around in strangers’ cars. They share their lives online. They aren’t going to care one bit about Tim’s irrational privacy fears. They’re going to use the most advanced product.

 

[macduke]

This is the first time that Google has done something that makes me want to grab an Android phone and try it immediately. If Google would get their act together when it comes to privacy then I'd consider getting an Android phone (even if as an extra device just for this) if the calling people functionality works as well as it should. There are so many times I need to call some place to get something scheduled for various services and I'll set reminders but I end up being too busy at the time and then when I get around to calling, they're closed. This thing has to be pretty magical though because there are some pretty gruff old dudes out there with thick southern accents and smoker's lung that you can barely understand on the phone. Not to even mention some foreign call center employees, or people who have poor connections. Imagine having Google call your cable company to shut off service. They could wait on the phone forever and have to put up with the sales B.S. for you! I feel like eventually it's just going to be robots calling robots. Why does it have to be this way? Texting is so much better. I hope more companies get on board with the business iMessage stuff.

 

[DNichter]

I don’t agree at all. Apple’s stance on privacy is not only outdated but illogical in a connected world. You make it sound like Apple could easily enable Siri to do what Google just demonstrated with Assistant. Fat chance.

Privacy. What are you so concerned about? Who cares if some server knows where you like to eat and what you buy at the grocery store? You’re going to be marketed to. That isn’t going to change. Wouldn’t you rather get targeted ads that are relevant?

Someone else in this thread said “Google will never get my medical records!” Again, shortsighted. A large data set of medical information will allow the machine to help with treatment. The more it knows, the more it can help. If I had some terrible illness, I’d be happy that the machine managed to find some treatment my doctor and I had never heard of thanks to the large data set it was able to mine.

As for assistants, the same holds true. An assistant can’t help you if it knows nothing about you. This is true in the real world as much as it is with AI assistants. I know people who have personal assistants. These assistants would not be able to do their jobs, much less do them well, without knowing specific details and having access to information about their employers. This is just logical. I think of it as assistant vs server (as in waiter). An assistant knows enough about me to assist me, to offer suggests based on insights and knowledge he/she possesses. A server knows nothing about me, so he or she can only respond to my requests.

Apple has painted itself into a corner with its privacy dogma. I think there’s a generational component to this issue as well. While I’m generally happy with Tim Cook, he’s no visionary. He’s done a great job of shepherding Apple across an industry-wide technological plateau but now he’s in serious danger of pulling a Microsoft and becoming irrelevant in the years to come.

I don’t know how old you are, but I’m guessing you’re not in your 20s or even 30s. Younger people, from what I’ve observed, don’t share the kinds of privacy concerns that Cook expresses. They are the connected generation. They rent rooms in their house by the night to strangers. They ride around in strangers’ cars. They share their lives online. They aren’t going to care one bit about Tim’s irrational privacy fears. They’re going to use the most advanced product.

Not easily, but I think if Apple spent years mining people's data, then yes they could. When it comes to privacy, it is more about a precedent to me than necessarily my personal info. I don't have anything to hide, but I think it's a dangerous move to completely negate privacy like many companies do today. I agree, the assistants need your personal data to be truly effective and until Apple figures out a way to accomplish this or let their users opt in, then they will likely struggle. Again, I don't think this will doom the company as you can still use anything Google has presented on iOS (if someone were so inclined). I am actually happy they have taken this stance on privacy and I hope that they stick to it. Being able to talk to robots is not more important than my privacy, I will make that trade off every day. I am 32, fairly technologically savvy, but I still value a platform that protects my privacy. I am happy that we as consumers have a choice. I have no issue with the choices you make, but I know which platform fits me best. I look for the best overall combination of performance, security, privacy, ecosystem, apps, and support. So far, Apple has been that platform. If that changes in the future, then I will be changing platforms.

 

[robbyx]

Not easily, but I think if Apple spent years mining people's data, then yes they could. When it comes to privacy, it is more about a precedent to me than necessarily my personal info. I don't have anything to hide, but I think it's a dangerous move to completely negate privacy like many companies do today. I agree, the assistants need your personal data to be truly effective and until Apple figures out a way to accomplish this or let their users opt in, then they will likely struggle. Again, I don't think this will doom the company as you can still use anything Google has presented on iOS (if someone were so inclined). I am actually happy they have taken this stance on privacy and I hope that they stick to it. Being able to talk to robots is not more important than my privacy, I will make that trade off every day. I am 32, fairly technologically savvy, but I still value a platform that protects my privacy. I am happy that we as consumers have a choice. I have no issue with the choices you make, but I know which platform fits me best. I look for the best overall combination of performance, security, privacy, ecosystem, apps, and support. So far, Apple has been that platform. If that changes in the future, then I will be changing platforms.

I’m curious, how does Google use your data that you find objectionable? What about Google’s approach to privacy is so worrisome to you? I used to worry much more about privacy but the sky hasn’t fallen. No one is rounding people up based on the data Google has collected. I just think the fear is irrational. I certainly don’t want my personal info available for all to see, but if having data about me helps make the products and service I use better and more personal, I think that’s a win. I’m far more worried about how all of these companies secure the data they have than what data they collect.

 

[Winter Charm]

Wow. Those demonstration calls were incredibly impressive. Apple feels so stagnant and uninspired these days, especially after seeing what Google has managed to accomplish here. The scary thing is, I don’t think Apple even realizes, much less cares, how far they are falling behind. For now they continue to rake in the dough with higher prices on iPhone, dropping features (ie: all ports from the MacBook) while maintaining price point, and nickel and diming users with services. Meanwhile Google is doing some pretty amazing and inspired work.

I disagree. Apple seems stagnant in the realm of personal assistants, but iPhone, iPad, and honestly, even the MacBook pros are doing great (keyboard issues aside).

Exciting products generate headlines, but that doesn't mean they're economical, sell well, or will be successful. Everyone said Google glass was the future. Where is it today? Everyone said the apple watch would be a fugly failure. It's still around. iPhone X was supposed to flop, it's still around. Boring products, that are sensical iterations of the last generation, are a good bet. They have a market and will continue to sell. It's the backbone of apple's success.

 

[andreyush]

Lots of research has indicated that the act of having a phone conversation while driving increases the likelihood of collision due to distraction from the conversation. This helps prevent any conversation. you give an order to your phone. and then the phone takes care of all the work.

I don't doubt there will be consequences of this sort of AI. its so new that we haven't yet really thought it through. My gut reaction was "this is cool, but also incredibly creepy, i'm not sure I like it". But ignoring my gut reaction and looking at the facts of what it is. This is a great potential set of tools that have ability to make our lives easier. Now that it's invented, we as a society will need to judge how it impacts us as a society and what sort of limits (if Any) need to be implemented.

However, your comments are basically "I don't like it so it sucks", which isn't really a valid point against it.

No..I am saying that we should stop at some point because if we go further we would have more disadvantages and consequences. Is Siri (siri maybe is dumb now -.-) /Cortana/Google AI not good for you at this point? I think it is enough for a basic phone user. We are not tony stark, we don't need an all mighty AI to call for a reservation at the restaurant.

 

[DNichter]

I’m curious, how does Google use your data that you find objectionable? What about Google’s approach to privacy is so worrisome to you? I used to worry much more about privacy but the sky hasn’t fallen. No one is rounding people up based on the data Google has collected. I just think the fear is irrational. I certainly don’t want my personal info available for all to see, but if having data about me helps make the products and service I use better and more personal, I think that’s a win. I’m far more worried about how all of these companies secure the data they have than what data they collect.

I choose not to support a company who's sole purpose is for advertising (95% of their revenue). I don't agree with taking people's personal data by means of products or free services and turning that data into advertising revenue. I also feel that allowing such a large company to do this can be potentially detrimental to our society as a whole, resulting in less control as individuals, and more control by said companies. I am okay with us disagreeing in this area, but it is something I don't see as a positive and would rather not support. Now I am not that crazy about it, don't wear any tin hats or anything, but it's just a personal choice when it comes to what platform I support. In fact, if Apple gave me the option to opt in and share my data so that it would improve my personal experiences with their products, I would. I'd just rather not put that data in the hands of an advertising company who exists to collect and build data profiles. It's creepy.

 

[Wide opeN]

Mind you, people appreciate the good looks of an iPhone but I doubt the majority of them upgrade to a new one because of hardware improvements. They want the latest amusement that the newer phone enables. One could say that Google Assistant’s abilities are amusements. Paired with a good-looking phone, this could eventually attract bored iPhone users.

That would be me.

 

[spacemnspiff]

In many actions there is not difference in a human doing it and a machine doing it. Except maybe humans complain more and want to get paid.

I was not referring to mere actions, but the comment about replacing interaction of humans via phone call with interactions with the machine was surprising and interesting to me.

 

[LordVic]

No..I am saying that we should stop at some point because if we go further we would have more disadvantages and consequences. Is Siri (siri maybe is dumb now -.-) /Cortana/Google AI not good for you at this point? I think it is enough for a basic phone user. We are not tony stark, we don't need a all mighty AI to call for a reservation at the restaurant.

But why not? Why not have the technology and capability available (by choice) to the user if they want? That's the whole point of advancement of technology. So that as many people possible have access to it so that anyone can improve their lives through quality of life services.

it's not mandatory. You don't have to use the functionality if you think it's too much for yourself. But why limit it, and why not keep trying to improve it?

I maynot be Tony Stark. I may be a lower income. But why should this be only accesible to the rich? Technology can improve everyones lives and it should be the goal for it to be commoditized and available to as many people as possible.

 

[jeremiah256]

This is the first time that Google has done something that makes me want to grab an Android phone and try it immediately. If Google would get their act together when it comes to privacy then I'd consider getting an Android phone (even if as an extra device just for this) if the calling people functionality works as well as it should. There are so many times I need to call some place to get something scheduled for various services and I'll set reminders but I end up being too busy at the time and then when I get around to calling, they're closed. This thing has to be pretty magical though because there are some pretty gruff old dudes out there with thick southern accents and smoker's lung that you can barely understand on the phone. Not to even mention some foreign call center employees, or people who have poor connections. Imagine having Google call your cable company to shut off service. They could wait on the phone forever and have to put up with the sales B.S. for you! I feel like eventually it's just going to be robots calling robots. Why does it have to be this way? Texting is so much better. I hope more companies get on board with the business iMessage stuff.

Google is a services company, so their iOS app already has the six additional voices, just like Android users, so you can try it out.

And to agree with and expand on your post, during the demonstration, with the second call to the restaurant, the assistant understood the accent of the lady on the other end much better than I could. And with Google translating abilities already pretty good, the world becomes much more accessible to anyone with this app.

Within five years, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others will be offering businesses professional assistants as ‘hosts’ to answer phone calls and taking care of customers. If Apple can’t or won’t keep up, as you mentioned, the younger generations will start to look at Apple as the ‘Buick’ of phones (a car only your parents would drive for the non-American members of the thread).

 

[Abazigal]

How do you think Apple would implement that's more socially acceptable and not creepy? In what ways would it be different from Google's implementation say for booking the examples haircut appointment and restaurant reservation? Can you deconstruct how the examples that Google provided lacks warmth and "common sense"? How do you define warmth? How do you define "common sense" for an AI communicating with a human being?

Apple wouldn’t choose to do it. Maybe that’s the whole point. That it shouldn’t be done. At all.

How would you, as a hairdresser, feel if you realised that your client was using AI to book an appointment with you? What sort of impression would you have? That apparently you are so unimportant that your client can’t even bother to spend a few minutes talking with you in person?

Does that not seem utterly demeaning and rude?

That’s what I am referring to. To Google, maybe it’s helping the user save time. But at what social cost? Put yourself in the receiver’s shoes. Are you really fine being spammed with the equivalent of robocalls from users?

It’s things like this which make me wonder whether google gets human interaction or not.

 

[Zwhaler]

Gotta admit those demos were impressive! We're really living in futuristic times...
This is where Apple could have been if they had played their cards right.

 

[Abazigal]

But why not? Why not have the technology and capability available (by choice) to the user if they want? That's the whole point of advancement of technology. So that as many people possible have access to it so that anyone can improve their lives through quality of life services.

it's not mandatory. You don't have to use the functionality if you think it's too much for yourself. But why limit it, and why not keep trying to improve it?

I maynot be Tony Stark. I may be a lower income. But why should this be only accesible to the rich? Technology can improve everyones lives and it should be the goal for it to be commoditized and available to as many people as possible.

I guess the question is more of whether such a feature should be used at all.

Put yourself in the recipient’s shoes. Say you are working in a restaurant. Are you really okay fielding reservations and not even knowing if the speaker on the other end is a real person or someone’s voice assistant? How would you feel if you knew it was AI but had to go through the entire process?

Me choosing not to use a certain technology does mean it won’t be used on me, nor does it mean I am somehow immune to the fallout.

I don’t see how being able to have our phones automate our conversations is improving the quality of life at all. We all know it’s annoying being put on hold by phone companies. Why then is it suddenly okay to do the same to another person?

What’s next? A couple having their assistants talk to each other to sort out a marital dispute?

Call me old fashioned. I hope Apple never does anything like this. Maybe it is the future just like you said, but I am not sure that it is a future I wish to live in.

 

[Blaze4G]

Who tf uses Siri or any other AI? Are you blind? Do you have two hands? Then stop being so lazy and find yourself a restaurant or a barber shop. Damn some people are so lazy.

Come at me.

Stop being so lazy and cook your own food and cut your own hair.

 

[jeremiah256]

How would you, as a hairdresser, feel if you realised that your client was using AI to book an appointment with you?

Honestly, as a business, you shouldn't care any more than if they used an app like Yelp or Open Table to book your services.

Does that not seem utterly demeaning and rude?

No. And unlike humans, if you have an accent or you're difficult to understand, the assistant is not going to get frustrated and impatient. In both the examples they showed, the user experience for the human was above average.

Put yourself in the recipient’s shoes. Say you are working in a restaurant. Are you really okay fielding reservations and not even knowing if the speaker on the other end is a real person or someone’s voice assistant? How would you feel if you knew it was AI but had to go through the entire process?

I'd be fine with it. How about the reverse? You're in Chicago on business, you've never tried Indian food but a friend suggested a great one near your hotel, so you call them up. Would you be insulted if you found out the pleasant host that took your reservation and patiently walked you through the menu was an AI?

I'd take it that the owner wanted to ensure they had the best customer service possible.

 

[Abazigal]

Would you be insulted if you found out the pleasant host that took your reservation and patiently walked you through the menu was an AI?

Actually, yes, I would be.

Because if I am going to be using AI to automate something like this, why even have two entities having a conversation back and forth with each other. Why not simply have an online booking system like what they already do with cinemas?

Point being, is it going to be made clear to me right from the very start whether I am talking to a live human being, or a voice assistant? Because Google makes it sound like their goal is to make it indistinguishable. Should there be some sort of disclaimer right at the start, like how they put a smelly agent in otherwise odourless natural gas to serve as a warning?

I am not going to spend my time talking to a voice assistant over the phone any longer than I absolutely need to, and any restaurant who tries this stunt with me is a restaurant that loses my business. Maybe to them, it’s an invaluable time saver. To me, you are basically telling me to my face that you don’t value me enough as a customer to have a real person entertain my enquiries. My local hairdresser is a good friend of my mom’s, and calling her personally to book an appointment is really the least polite thing any one of us in the family could do.

But maybe that’s just me.

 

[jeremiah256]

Actually, yes, I would be.

Because if I am going to be using AI to automate something like this, why even have two entities having a conversation back and forth with each other. Why not simply have an online booking system like what they already do with cinemas?

Point being, is it going to be made clear to me right from the very start whether I am talking to a live human being, or a voice assistant? Because Google makes it sound like their goal is to make it indistinguishable. Should there be some sort of disclaimer right at the start, like how they put a smelly agent in otherwise odourless natural gas to serve as a warning?

I am not going to spend my time talking to a voice assistant over the phone any longer than I absolutely need to, and any restaurant who tries this stunt with me is a restaurant that loses my business. Maybe to them, it’s an invaluable time saver. To me, you are basically telling me to my face that you don’t value me enough as a customer to have a real person entertain my enquiries. My local hairdresser is a good friend of my mom’s, and calling her personally to book an appointment is really the least polite thing any one of us in the family could do.

But maybe that’s just me.

Two quick reasons.

Convenience: With translating services, your virtual phone host will be conversant in multiple languages. If the person speaks English as a second language, they may find it more comfortable speaking in their native language. Could you have website with multiple language capabilities? Yes, but it's no where near as convenient as allowing the customer to just ask the virtual host, "Can you speak French?" and going from there. Could you just rely on a Yelp or Open Table service? Yes, but this way, the owner of the service has more control over what is and is not presented to the customer, such as recommendations on dishes.

Costs: That Indian restaurant I used in my example may be a small mom and pop place without a website or no desire to have one.

As for the bot or not discussion, I agree that this is going to have to be worked out. There are ethical questions that need to be considered, and whether AIs should be required to identify themselves prior to communicating with humans is one of them. While I find this tech liberating and can't wait to get my hands on it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that I'm in the minority (at least in the United States). I hope our lawmakers are up to the challenge.

 

[mtneer]

I think people who are trying to use "privacy" as a deflection for Apple's poor performance should realize that privacy is completely at cross-purposes to an "assistant". You don't call someone for assistance and then claim that you want to have privacy and won't tell them anything - they can't "assist" you much either. I'd rather have Apple make transparent declarations on how they'd collect and use data for their assistant rather than just sit on their butts doing nothing. Folks who are privacy minded can opt out and stay with today's Apple.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Now, I'd love to hear Siri try to make these phone calls.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Apple wouldn’t choose to do it. Maybe that’s the whole point. That it shouldn’t be done. At all.

How would you, as a hairdresser, feel if you realised that your client was using AI to book an appointment with you? What sort of impression would you have? That apparently you are so unimportant that your client can’t even bother to spend a few minutes talking with you in person?

Does that not seem utterly demeaning and rude?

That’s what I am referring to. To Google, maybe it’s helping the user save time. But at what social cost? Put yourself in the receiver’s shoes. Are you really fine being spammed with the equivalent of robocalls from users?

It’s things like this which make me wonder whether google gets human interaction or not.

As a hairdresser or someone providing a service I actually wouldn’t care.

If a friend or family member used AI to call me then yes I would not like it. But a stranger calling to book an appointment, wouldn’t really care if it’s an AI or a real person.

 

[DNichter]

I think people who are trying to use "privacy" as a deflection for Apple's poor performance should realize that privacy is completely at cross-purposes to an "assistant". You don't call someone for assistance and then claim that you want to have privacy and won't tell them anything - they can't "assist" you much either. I'd rather have Apple make transparent declarations on how they'd collect and use data for their assistant rather than just sit on their butts doing nothing. Folks who are privacy minded can opt out and stay with today's Apple.

I’d have to agree with this. I think privacy does hinder Apple’s progress when it comes to Siri, but it should still be better than it is. I would definitely opt in if given the choice by Apple though. As long as my information isn’t in the hands of a company that exists for advertising, I am good.