Rick Singh: February 2017

Monday, February 6, 2017

HOW TO KEEP AMAZON ECHO AND GOOGLE HOME FROM RESPONDING TO YOUR TV

Voice assistants such as the Amazon Echo and Google Home are pretty smart, but they’re not yet sharp enough to understand the difference between TV and reality. A Google commercial during yesterday’s Super Bowl prompted Home to play whale noises, flip the hallway lights on, and recite a substitute for cardamom. As a series of actors barked “OK Google” commands on TV, the devices started doing what they were asked to do. Android phones with Google Assistant may have done the same thing. Google Home wasn’t haunted. It was just doing its job.

Any owner of a Google Home or Amazon Echo knows that certain TV commercials prompt unwanted activity. Representatives from both Google and Amazon told us that their television advertisements use altered audio to minimize the chances of a Home or an Echo responding to an ad. Google noted the company is working on a way to make its devices ignore commercials altogether. However, some speakers are still springing awake in some homes when the ads play on the television. Thankfully, there are some ways to keep your smart speaker from listening.

There’s a Switch for That

The best way to ensure your TV doesn’t hijack your helper is to use the physical switch on the back of each assistant that turns off the microphone. This is something you need to do manually every time you’re sitting down to watch a sporting event, or some other live TV show bound to include commercials you can’t skip. It’s not a perfect solution, because you have to remember to turn the assistant’s microphone back on when the event is over.

Change Alexa’s Wake Word

For the time being, that microphone-off switch is the only way to stop Google Home from responding to your TV’s whims. Home responds to two “wake phrases,” and both of them are always active: “OK Google,” and “Hey Google.” Whenever it hears either of those phrases, it starts recording a query and processing a response.

With Alexa, you can use an alternative wake word to lessen the chance of accidental assistance. You can’t set the wake word to anything you want, but you can limit it to a non-Alexa option.

Go to the Settings menu in your Amazon Alexa app.
Pick the device you want to manage.
In the “General” section, tap the “Wake Word” entry.
Choose between “Alexa,” “Amazon,” “Echo,” or “Computer.”

Unfortunately, of the four options Amazon allows as a wake word, “Alexa” is probably the least likely to trigger accidental wake-ups. “Computer” is cool, but it’s a word you’ll likely say a lot in normal conversation, and it will likely disrupt your next Star Trek binge session. “Echo” and “Amazon” are also commonly used words in everyday chatter. But if you change it to one of those, at least those Amazon ads won’t commandeer your Echo.

There are third-party Alexa devices coming to market soon, such as LG’s Hub robot, which will purportedly let you customize wake words and even respond to the voices of different individual humans.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Google’s Super Bowl ad accidentally set off a lot of Google Homes

Early during tonight’s game, Google’s ad for the Google Home aired on millions of TVs. We’ve actually seen the ad before: loving families at home meeting, hugging, and being welcomed by the Google Assistant. Someone says “Okay, Google,” and those familiar, colorful lights pop up.

But then my Google Home perked up, confused. “Sorry,” it said. “Something went wrong.” I laughed, because that wasn’t supposed to happen. I wasn’t the only one.

This isn’t the first time television has set off people’s home assistants. A month ago, a TV broadcast accidentally triggered a whole bunch of Amazon Echos.

Poor Dave... At some point, some enterprising TV writer or ad jerk is gonna plant an “Okay, Google” into some on TV with intent and force everyone to listen to Nickelback. Mark my words. This is a massive troll waiting to happen.

US Judge Breaks Precedent, Orders Google To Give Foreign Emails To FBI

Google was betting on a January 24 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that it would not rehear the Justice Department's arguments for why it needed access to user data from Microsoft's servers located in Ireland. Many believed that decision might create some legal guidance for cases like this one in which the laws on the books are considered outdated and insufficient.

The legal language of "possessory interest", for example, is often used to define temporary ownership over real estate. Attempting to determine ownership over abstract property in the form of data isn't easy with the current legal system.

In the ruling against Google, Judge Rueter is arguing that even though "the retrieval of the electronic data by Google from its multiple data centres abroad has the potential for an invasion of privacy, the actual infringement of privacy occurs at the time of disclosure in the United States." It's unclear if that decision means that evidence from a foreign server would be a violation of privacy if disclosed in a US court of law.

Clarity is what tech companies and privacy advocates have been pushing for over the years. Both the Microsoft and Google cases relied on warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act from 1986. A lot has changed about the flow of information since then and in a globalized world, tech giants have to work with competing international privacy laws. If Judge Rueter's opinion stands, it could put the US in violation of international treaties.

Google argued that because it stores pieces of emails on different servers in order to streamline its network performance, it might not even know where the information that's being requested is actually stored. The search giant released a statement today saying, "The magistrate in this case departed from precedent, and we plan to appeal the decision. We will continue to push back on overbroad warrants."

These types of cases will either have to make their way to the Supreme Court or Congress will have to act. With the chaotic state of the US government at the moment, it's impossible to say how either of those options might work out.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

How Snap stacks up against Facebook and Twitter

The initial-public-offering filing by Snap Inc. has generated a lot of attention, as one of the largest technology IPOs in years and an offering that could value the company at up to $25 billion.

Because of its social messaging app, Snapchat, and large valuation, the companySNAP, +0.00% has drawn comparisons to the IPOs of Facebook and Twitter. And during its road show, Snap reportedly said it was the next Facebook, not Twitter, according to the Wall Street Journal, but after it revealed large net losses, investors and analysts are not so sure.

“It is concerning, because people got burned with Twitter,” said Santosh Rao, head of research at Manhattan Venture Partners.

Since going the first day of trading, May 18, 2012, shares of Facebook Inc.FB, +0.11% have more than tripled, gaining 243%. Shares of Twitter Inc.TWTR, -0.96% have fallen 61% since the company’s first day of trading on Nov. 7, 2013.

At the time it went public, Facebook was about 8 years old. Twitter was 7 years old on its IPO date. Snap is 5.

0:00 / 0:00

For what it’s worth, Snap in its prospectus appears to be trying to avoid comparisons by declaring that it is a camera company and not another social-media network. That may be merited. The company is centered on image-based communication, said Chi-Hua Chien, founder of Goodwater Capital, but that still invites comparisons to Facebook’s Instagram.

Given the different metrics preferred by each company, different earnings schedules and the difference in their ages, it’s hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison. We used the latest data available for each company, as well as numbers from Twitter and Facebook just before they went public, to show a rough comparison.

Here's how they stack up:

Daily active users

• For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2016, Snap reported 158 million daily active users, a 3% increase from the previous quarter, whose comparable DAU figure was 153 million. Investors are concerned that user growth could be slowing as the company had a 7% increase from the second to third quarter.

• For its fourth quarter, ended in December 2016, Facebook reported 1.23 billion DAUs, up from 1.18 billion in the previous quarter, marking an increase of 4.2%. In the last quarter before it went public, ended March 31, 2012, Facebook had 526 million DAUs, up from 483 million in the previous quarter, an 8.9% increase.

• Twitter does not break out DAU numbers, but a Bloomberg report calculated 136 million daily active users as of June 2016. In the third quarter, which ended in September, the most recent quarter for which Twitter has reported earnings, the company said DAUs were up 7% on a year-over-year basis, compared with an increase of 5% in the second quarter.

Net income

• Facebook reported net income of $4.57 billion in the fourth quarter, up from $3.12 billion in the third quarter. In the quarter before it went public, Facebook was profitable and recorded net income of $205 million, down from $302 million in the previous quarter.

• Snap reported a net loss of $169.9 million in the fourth quarter, wider than its loss of $124.2 million in the previous quarter.

• Twitter reported a net loss of $103 million in the third quarter, narrower than its loss of $107 million in the second quarter. Twitter was operating at a loss before going public, recording a net loss of $64.6 million in the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, wider than its loss of $42.2 million in the prior quarter.

Revenue

• Facebook is king in terms of social-media revenue, with $8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016, up from $7.01 billion in the third quarter. Facebook reported worldwide average revenue per user of $4.83 for the fourth quarter of 2016. In the quarter before it went public, Facebook recorded total revenue of $1.06 billion and revenue per user of $1.21.

• Snap recorded revenue of $165.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2016, up from $128.2 million a year before. It reported revenue per user of $1.05 for the fourth quarter of 2016.

• Twitter reported third-quarter revenue of $616 million in 2016, up from $602 million in the previous quarter. It does not break out average revenue per user. In the last quarter before it went public, ended Sept. 30, 2013, Twitter recorded revenue of $168.6 million.

Google is reportedly removing Google Now Launcher from the Play Store

Google has offered the option to install its own Google Now-based app launcher on any Android device since August 2014, but it appears that’s about to change. According to a leaked email sent to Android Police, Google is planning on removing the Google Now Launcher from the Play Store by the end of Q1 2017, and will stop approving new devices that try to ship with the Google Now Launcher on March 1st.

Google Now Launcher was primarily designed for Google Nexus line of reference devices, but was best known for being a quick and trusted way to cover up ugly Android skins from manufacturers and replace them with Google’s clean, consistent Material Design language. While the leaked email notes that Google will still be supporting the app through updates, it will no longer be offered through the Play Store.

It’s possible that with Google killing the Now Launcher, the company could be expanding the new Pixel Launcher that it also develops for other devices — currently, it’s exclusive only to Google’s recent Pixel and Pixel XL. As of now though, users will have to turn to other third-party solutions like Nova Launcher to re-skin their Android devices going forward.

Friday, February 3, 2017

U.S. judge temporarily blocks Trump's travel ban

A U.S. judge has imposed a nationwide hold on Donald Trump's ban on travellers and immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries, siding with two states that had challenged the executive order that has launched legal battles across the country.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled that Washington state and Minnesota had standing to challenge Trump's order, which government lawyers disputed, and said they showed their case was likely to succeed.

About 60,000 people from the affected countries had their visas cancelled.

"The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury," Robart said. "This TRO [temporary restraining order] is granted on a nationwide basis ..."

It wasn't immediately clear what happens next for people who had waited years to receive visas to come to the U.S., however an internal email circulated among Homeland Security officials told employees to comply with the ruling immediately.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials have also informed U.S. airlines that they can once again board travellers who had been barred by the executive order. Canada's WestJet was told the same thing.

White House responds

White House spokesperson Sean Spicer released a statement late Friday saying they "will file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the president, which we believe is lawful and appropriate."

Soon after, the White House sent out a new statement that removed the word "outrageous."

"The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people," the statement said.

Trump's order last week sparked global protests and confusion at U.S. airports as some travellers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer.

Washington became the first state to sue over the order that temporarily bans travel for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen and suspends the U.S. refugee program.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the travel ban significantly harms residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the lawsuit two days later.

'The law is a powerful thing'

After the ruling, Ferguson said people from the affected countries can now apply for entry to the U.S.

"Judge Robart's decision, effective immediately … puts a halt to President Trump's unconstitutional and unlawful executive order," Ferguson said. "The law is a powerful thing — it has the ability to hold everybody accountable to it, and that includes the president of the United States."

Gillian M. Christensen, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation. The judge's ruling could be appealed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge's written order, released late Friday, said it's not the court's job to "create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches" of government.

The court's job "is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country's laws."

Robart ordered federal defendants "and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from" enforcing the executive order.

Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the president authority to make decisions on national security and immigrant entry.

The two states won a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which aims to permanently block Trump's order. Court challenges have been filed nationwide from states and advocacy groups.

In court, Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the focus of the state's legal challenge was the way Trump's order targeted Islam.

Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the country, and the travel ban was an effort to make good on that campaign promise, Purcell told the judge.

"Do you see a distinction between campaign statements and the executive order?" Robart asked. "I think it's a bit of a reach to say the president is anti-Muslim based on what he said in New Hampshire in June."

Purcell said there was an "overwhelming amount of evidence" to show that the order was directed at the Muslim religion, which is unconstitutional.

No attacks from 7 banned countries

When the judge questioned the federal government's lawyer, Michelle Bennett, he repeatedly questioned the rationale behind the order.

Robart, who was appointed the federal bench by President George W. Bush, asked if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Trump's order since 9/11. Bennett said she didn't know.

"The answer is none," Robart said. "You're here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there's no support for that."

Bennett argued that the states can't sue on behalf of citizens and the states have failed to show the order is causing irreparable harm.

Robart disagreed.

Up to 60,000 foreigners from the seven majority-Muslim countries had their visas cancelled because of the executive order, the State Department said Friday.

That figure contradicts a statement from a Justice Department lawyer on the same day during a court hearing in Virginia about the ban. The lawyer in that case said about 100,000 visas had been revoked.

The State Department clarified that the higher figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were actually exempted from the travel ban, as well as expired visas.

Ferguson, a Democrat, said the order is harming Washington residents, businesses and its education system.

Washington-based businesses Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft support the state's efforts to stop the order. They say it's hurting their operations, too.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Google Tops Apple as the World’s Most Valuable Brand

Google is now the world's most valuable brand, according to a new study, snagging the No.1 spot from Apple which has been the incumbent since 2011.

The annual ranking from Brand Finance says Google's monetary value increased to $109.5 billion last year, representing a 24% increase overall. By contrast, Apple's monetary value fell from $145.9 billion in the previous year to $107.1 billion, according to the study. The decrease allowed Google to snag the top spot by about $2.4 billion.

The news of its No.2 spot comes as "Apple has failed to maintain its technological advantage and has repeatedly disillusioned its advocates with tweaks when material changes were expected," the study's authors wrote, who further explained that tech-giant has "over-exploited the goodwill" of its customers, namely because of its failure to generate significant revenues from products like the Apple Watch, and its inability to "demonstrate that genuinely innovative technologies desired by consumers are in the pipeline."

As for Google, the company "remains largely unchallenged in its core search business, which is the mainstay of its advertising income,” Brand Finance wrote in the report. Though Google has largely benefited from increased revenues (parent company Alphabet recently reported better-than-expected fourth-quarter revenue) its brand strength score is also a factor in its success. According to the study, Google's brand strength score was up by two points, indicating "underlying brand equity." In other words, the better the brand equity is for a tech business, the more likely it is to retain customers, or "even command a price premium that its products and services might not be worth," Brand Finance reports.

Out of the 500 brands analyzed, Amazon was deemed third most valuable, at $106.4 billion. Snagging the No. 4 spot was AT&T at $87 billion, which was followed by No.5 Microsoft at $76.3 billion and No.6 Samsung at $66.2 billion. Verizon was No. 7 at $65.9 billion. Walmart, Facebook, and ICBC snagged the last three spots in the top ten, at $62.2 billion, $61.9 billion, and $47.8 billion, respectively.