News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @11:58AM (#33986312)
>No point in buying if they aren't sustainable.

Why would consumers care if they are sustainable? If I get my value out of the product before it is bricked, I don't care if the company lost billions or even trillions of dollars?

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by jqpabc123 on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @12:18PM (#33986600)
Why would consumers care if they are sustainable?

Most don't --- it's typically out of sight, out of mind.

Most consumers don't care that credit cards consume 2.5% of the purchase price. But they ultimately pay for it.

Likewise with Amazon, their projected $10 billion loss on Alexa toys this year alone affects the price of everything else you buy from them.

If I get my value out of the product before it is bricked

And if you don't? It takes time, effort and money to fully incorporate Alexa into your home. The speaker is only the first part of the cost.

Personally, I'm reluctant to do this if I know the product is a marketplace loser on the verge of being axed.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33757288

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @01:28PM (#33987642)
I'm not sure I agree that losses on Alexa translate to higher prices, opposed to just cutting into profits. Most profitable businesses set prices too optimize unit profit times sales. That is to say, they they won't increase prices if sales will go down as a result. They aren't running a non-profit
Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by jqpabc123 on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @03:11PM (#33989637)
They aren't running a non-profit.

Precisely the point.

$10 billion is a decent hit to the bottom line. If they choose to absorb it, it typically rolls down to the consumer somehow.

If not, I can see a dead simple way to add $10 billion to profit --- shut down Alexa.

Neither of these options inspires a lot of confidence in the future of the product.

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @03:41PM (#33990217)
The point I'm trying to make is that the cost don't typically roll down to to the consumer in the way that you describe specifically for the reason you call out. If Amazon is already doing everything I can to maximize profits and other sectors, they can't just make more money there to make up for a loss on Alexa. If there are leaving money on the table when it comes to e-commerce, they should raise prices whether or not Alexa is at a loss.

This is a separate question on whether you can get $15 a value out of a speaker before they cancel the program.

Uber might not have a long-term viable business model, but that won't stop me from taking a ride if I like the price. I'm a consumer not a investor.

If your point is that consumers might care about the long-term support for Alexa, then I agree that those consumers should be wary.

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by faeriechangling on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @10:03PM (#33994611)
You’re presuming too much competence on the part of Amazon. They’re not subsidizing those devices to fulfill a long term dastardly scheme where they make their money back and more.

They just screwed up lol and customers who took advantage won out.

Re:Voice assistants failed because they serve their makers m... by jqpabc123 on Thursday December 15, 2022 @08:23AM (#33999120)
The question is --- are they still winners if the Alexa backend is suddenly shutdown?

These devices just collect audio data and send it to Amazon for processing. Without the backend service, they are useless.