Inevitably. That’s the goal of most tech startups; hype themselves up and sell out for as many millions as possible. Meanwhile honest labor, education, and trades workers can’t afford houses.
HP is reportedly one of the companies that Humane was in talks with over a potential sale
They didn’t learn the lesson with webos? They lost billions even if that was a good os with good phones.
Can’t imagine anyone wanting to buy this company for more than 1million and that’s just because of patents and devs (acquihire - where the buyer is only interested in ip and devs and doesn’t care at all about the actual product)
I don’t see how the AI assistant won’t eventually just end up on the smartphone. And, given that it’s not always appropriate to talk out loud to your phone, being able to use it with a screen makes it the perfect device for it.
Sure you can sell an app on the App Store, but most people won’t pay more than 5 bucks for an app, and even that’s stretching it. And the subscription market is already over saturated. So how do you make a boatload of cash? Sell overpriced hardware that needs to be “upgraded” every year or 2 to use new features, and include a subscription to use the thing in the first place.
They wanted to pull an Apple and lock people into their hardware ecosystem. I guarantee there was a plan for them to release an AI phone in the next 5 years if this thing did well.
What they missed is Apple products are generally pleasant to use on a daily basis. From what everyone said, this thing was hot garbage and slow to respond to queries.
As someone who doesn’t wear a watch, having a little fob that I could use to activate Siri without digging my phone out of my pocket would be pretty nice. If it were a phone peripheral it probably would have been a lot better.
It will just come as standard with phones. Apple made a deal with OpenAI so it’s only a matter of time until Samsung does the same. Then it becomes a selling point for the device.
The ear bud/voice interface we see in the movie Her looks nice too TBH.
If we ever get LLMs or whatever we call AI next that is able to understand us that well and perform complex actions for us, I could see that working great.
You can’t conclude that from this. The fact that there was hype and excitement about this supports an interest in the concept. This was simply utterly horrible execution and that is all.
I don’t know about that. That a LOT of people liked that reveal TED talk.
If this was half the price, could hold a charge, didn’t start fires, and didn’t pull your shirt down, then it would still be dumb, but you’d probably have enough people buying it to keep the company alive.
That was a year ago, with 2 million views and 39k likes. That is not sign of hype. Specially when contrasted directly to the reality of sales.
Dear lord, you can see on the TED talk when he does the obviously planned big reveal, Imran Chaudhri doesn’t even get an applause. He actually pauses a few times in the conference waiting for the audience to applaud and nothing happens a couple of times. When he makes jokes almost nobody laughs. There’s even a point where he jumps the gun and says thank you before the spontaneous applause™ happens. That has to be the most cringe TED talk in history (and that’s hard because almost all of TED in the past 5 years is cringe), other than the fact it was just an obvious ad.
I just disagree and/or read different sources. There was considerable hype regarding this device across numerous tech sources and many people liked and still do like the idea. Clearly you don’t think everyone hated it do you? Using words like everyone or no one almost always means your sample is off or your are projecting an opinion.
Yeah, I don’t doubt there were people who were really hyped out of their minds for this. But it’s my impression they were a minority. Almost all press around the device was extremely skeptical, and only a few were cautiously excited. I follow a lot of tech circles in social media and there wasn’t really a buzz about the pin. But, I think the proof is in the pudding. 10,000 sales is not exactly evidence of an extremely popular device. Even if the end result was bad, if there was a lot of hype, one would expect higher sales. After all we knew the price and conditions of sales (subscription) for a long time before release.
I don’t think that’s the pudding. The device had a high bar for entry with its price and was a very novel tech device. Most people interested in the concept likely were reticent to pre-order and wanted to wait for early adopter reports to surface. I maintain that there is a viable market and sufficient enthusiasm for the technology / concept that the company promised, but obviously not the one they delivered.
I mean, sure. Several startups are making bank selling AI, not to individuals, but to companies. There is no money to be made long term on mediocre chatbots. No matter in what form factor they come, and unfortunately, this and the rabbit thing poisoned the market and clearly marked anything AI as a scam on buyer’s minds.
Edit: also, if the hype were really that high for such a device, then the rabbit should’ve sold a lot more units, since it was the budget version of the humane pin. But that wasn’t the case either. And now everyone knows both companies were just pump and dump scams.
Rabbit r1 garnered $10million in pre-order sales. How many should it have sold to impress you? The first 5 batches I think sold out within a day or days, production of the units appeared to be the bottleneck until people actually got a hold of them and reported on how awful they were.
You just seem bent on this whole issue. Is there a point you want to make? Or are you just upset about AI stuff in general?
My point is that the hype is very intense, but not massively distributed. I just try to promote critical thinking and reasoning by calling out bullshitters and retconners. Rabbit r1 sold 50000 units in a few days, that is in fact impressive, and a sign of a core audience that is very passionate about a concept. Of course, before it came out that they were in fact a scam company.
But, let’s look at the big picture. Worldwide, over 4 000 000 cellphones are sold…every day. Even if we look at just the US market, we are talking about 300 000 cellphone sales per day. This puts things in perspective. Tech enthusiast, compulsive buyers and obsessive nerds might hype up things to the moon and back. But the fact of the matter is that they are not representative of the market. The whole market of potential buyers of a computing device as a whole were at best mildly curious, and at worst entirely oblivious of the existence of the r1 and the humane pin.
But you ARE the bullshiter. You are not some voice of reason. The initial iPhone sold 270,000 units in its first two days. You can’t compare a novel tech device to something with decades of evolution.
Time will be the only judge here. You are making an opinionated statement about the interest of the global population that is speculation biased from your own personal opinion when there is data that suggests that opieis incorrect. Argue all you want or just Wait 10 years and see. But some sort of vert successful AI aasisitive enabled glasses, pin, Earbuds, or other wearable is a highly likely evolution of these early failures.
Yours is also an opinionated statement about the interest of the global population that is speculation biased from your own personal opinion. You presented some data, and I counterargued with my own data. Chill out. Neither of us is here debating for world peace or anything. But I would add that wisdom of the masses (votes) seem to agree with me. Which is further evidence that at least on this community, there was no hype. The nerd culture is actually very anti AI. It’s business bros that share your worldview.
This solves only the most recent of privacy concerns that were only discovered with it recently. The primary concern is the core ‘feature’ itself: Windows recording everything you do and look at.
People work with your personal data on a regular basis, you better hope not a single one of them have this ‘feature’ enabled.
If you don't turn it on it doesn't record anything.
People work with your personal data on a regular basis, you better hope not a single one of them have this 'feature' enabled.
Those sorts of businesses have policies on their computers, should be possible to disable it company-wide. If they're not doing that then they have bigger problems than just Recall.
It’s not companies that are the problem. It’s your friends, the type that always clicks on accept all and allow. Do you have any idea how many spam calls I get because someone allowed some proprietary app access to their contacts? And I have at least five friends who would enable recall without giving it a second thought.
The person I was responding to didn't say "I think they'll eventually make it opt-out again, at some point in the future, in my opinion." He gave a factual description of the current state of the feature. An incorrect one.
If you want to hate on face-eating leopards at least be accurate when describing them. Otherwise you become the boy that cried face-eating leopard.
They ate so many faces as of today, what are you talking about? Microsoft has a long history of doing this, I can’t believe you can in any way defend them.
That is how they spin it now, but I saw the setup process for windows 11 on copilot+ laptops and it was opt-out originally. I’d imagine it’s going to be one of those things where they ask you to enable it every couple of days.
Exactly. Making Edge my default browser is opt-in too, but that doesn’t stop them from bugging me about it regularly or switching it any time they think they can.
I’m loving Linux Mint since I switched. It’s nice to have an operating system that isn’t trying to subvert my choices every day.
Making it opt-in is a much better way to offer this ridiculous “feature”. But I wager there will be future shenanigans. MS is very sneaky and passive-aggressive about pushing sketchy unwanted shit on its customers.
Even if the controls were big and obvious, I wouldn’t trust them. Microsoft’s knowingly using dark patterns. It’ll eventually justify using it to spy on those who didn’t quite consent.
So, if we do some sloppy rounding and say that the subscriptions make them 3 million a year . . . it’ll only take a bit more than 330 years for anyone buying Humane at the asking price to break even. My cat could figure out that wasn’t a good buy. (Of course, he’d prefer to invest in a tuna cannery . . .)
Why does noone here mention Deezer as an alternative? Serious question, cause im currently testing their free trial. They also pay more than Spotify to the artists and have better audio quality. Also i like the flow playlist feature so far. Any reasons against Deezer? Or anything in specific that makes Tidal better?
Same price if Spotify raises prices. But they have an annual plan that makes it cheaper than Spotify. I have no clue about apple stuff, sorry. And i never use Android Auto. Im no help here.
engadget.com
Active