They’re creating a need, but that doesn’t mean they’re creating a market opportunity. Google has taught everyone that all this stuff should be free, and that’s no accident: it’s a deliberate strategy to suck up all available oxygen away from potential competitors. Someone (Ben Thompson maybe?) described Google’s strategy as not just building a moat, but scorching the earth for hundreds of miles in every direction from their castle. It’s unbelievably difficult to build a direct competitor to Google unless you’re starting from a position of huge capitalization (and even that’s no guarantee... I don’t exactly see techies flocking to Bing after they complain about Google)

This is so fucking true. If anything you can see this in the real marketplace. Consumers have become so averse to paying for software because they see gmail, google maps, google keep, docs and photos as available for “free” - meaning they have to part with something from their life but not the cash, so why the hell pay for anything else?

Even worse than undermining expectations about the price of software, since google's general use apps (gmail, docs, etc.) are Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS[1]), Google is also undermining the basic concept of buying a copy of software. Even as an intangible good, it's easy to understand the value of owning a copy that you get to keep and use on your own terms. When the same software is only available as a service, availability issues and other risks that outside your control make the service less valuable.

Why should someone want to buy software when most of the software they see and use regularly are unreliable services?

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

Thompson quoted it from http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/03/24/freight-train-that-is-an...

>I don’t exactly see techies flocking to Bing after they complain about Google

I flew to duckduckgo, don't know about flocking...

I think the main barrier is that people are generally unwilling to pay for these products now so it's hard to fund things with anything besides ads. If someone finds other ways to fund it I could see it but for now even with them vulnerable it would be hard to compete with them if you also were funded via ads.

People are paying $1000+ for Pixel phones. I think that should cover the cost of an alarm app.

The thing is, you don't only need an alternative for the alarm app if you want to get rid of GApps.

The hidden costs of apps Google gives you for "free" is probably above $1,000. I guess the majority would give away their privacy for that amount these days.

Do you find it likely that Google is earning over $1,000 from each user? How are they getting that? I'd say the real cost is probably a couple of orders of magnitude lower.

This makes absolutely no sense. How is bunch of very basic userspace programs cost >$1000? Google doesn't even make its own kernel, they just make the userspace. For reference OSX and Windows are much cheaper than $1000 and most linux distros are for gratis and all these systems include more complex programs than a basic alarm app, calculator etc.

Alarm apps don't need tracking. Asking Google Assistant to set an alarm needs tracking.

I wish there was a SaaS application which provided assistant capabilities by a monthly subscription. You can see all the data stored, you own the data the service just creates models to enable use. And you could stop the subscription which wipes all the data including the models. Perhaps some startup founder is reading this?

I'm expecting good things from Snips; they're already build a device like Alexa that runs all recognition locally: https://air.snips.ai/

Making an Android frontend seems easy enough.

(You can also DIY by installing Home Assistant and Snips on a Raspberry Pi or other computer)

Yes, snips is pretty well known in the maker community. They're adding blockchain tech to double down on the whole privacy aspect of it, it seems. Wonder if they can break through to the mainstream.

This looks promising! Thanks, I'll check it out.

The problem is, how does the saas prove to you that you own the data and privacy is not violated? I see no way of doing it unless the customer owns the server.

TOS/Contract. Something like Dropbox. You do believe you own the data on Dropbox right? This is something Microsoft can do as an Azure service to counter Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant maybe.

They pay for similar services when they buy an Apple device. That’s why Apple Maps exists: to give people reasons to buy their hardware. iWork is free and not ad supported when you buy a Mac. Yet, when you buy a Chromebook, are Google Services ad-and-tracking free? Apple has proven that you can do “free” and respect privacy. Is ad-targeting/tracking happening when you use Google Services on a Pixel?

I don't defend Google long slide into hard-core-stalkerdom, but there is a slight price difference between a Macbook Air and a Chromebook. Apple uses hardware income to support software dev costs; Google uses tracking and ads to pay for same and keep device cost low.

I switched my assistant app to Cortana, if you can believe that.

It works well enough, and doesn't require every permission to be enabled. It'll work fine with whatever you give it. (Within reason. It can't give you information about your calendar unless you give it that permission, etc.)

Reminders and such get synced to my PC.

There are, of course, many holes in its functionality... hoping it gets better. Don't know if there's a better assistant app for Android at this point.

How did you completely get rid of Google Assistant on an android phone? Did it involve rooting it?

I didn't get rid of it, it's just not mapped to my home key anymore and isn't otherwise used.

I agree. I'm not concerned with Google's vulnerability, but for most of my own usage, it's pretty low hanging fruit to recreate the basics. Will be interesting to see how things progress.