“Invoke” to challenge Amazon Echo, Google Home?

Topic

New Reply

I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve had a chance to play with Cortana on the new Harmon Kardon speaker. But “Invoke”? Gawd. Is that the best Microsoft ma
[See the full post at: “Invoke” to challenge Amazon Echo, Google Home?]

Reply | Quote

Replies

What in tarnation?  I thought (and I’m 23 years of age) society had fallen when we reached such a dependence on technology that people need to be able to dictate their desired Google search into their phone.  Now they need speakers just to sit on the table and essentially narrate Google results for them?

And we wonder why obesity keeps rising.

Fortran, C++, R, Python, Java, Matlab, HTML, CSS, etc.... coding is fun!
A weatherman that can code

5 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, samak, HiFlyer, woody, Rock

Reply | Quote

Will a selection of wizard style costumes be offered to potential purchasers at product launch time?

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

The product name is supposed to say ‘buy me’ or ‘try me’.

‘Invoke’ does not inspire me to do either. I immediately thought of ‘invoking spirits’ , the dead ones, not the other type. Aren’t marketing people supposed to be creative and bubbly types with a huge sense of humor and a PhD in what sells and why.

Surface (superficial), Edge (on the fringe), Bing ( heap or pile of waste) – these previous examples are just as perplexing. Me thinks they need to get out more.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Alice

Reply | Quote

The names become less perplexing after observing current use, trends or design.

A Surface computer’s parts are basically just an expensive reconfiguration from what you may be able to buy from other vendors, it superficially looks different. Edge makes sense about being on the fringe because so few people want to use the browser. And with Bing you do get a pile of links mined from the depths of Internet content, as with any search engine you get some waste tailings.

Reply | Quote

You can take my 7.1.4 surround sound away when I die.  Single speaker music just does not cut it for me.

(Yes I know, music is likely the least important function of the HK Invoke and its competitors – but still . . . )

~ Group "Weekend" ~

Reply | Quote

What happened with the good old stereo with 2 speakers?
Everything invented after is artificially sounding and commercial fluff in my opinion.
🙂

1 user thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel

Reply | Quote

Stereo led to Quadraphonic (and you can still find albums in 4 track formats) then to full surround.  And while I agree that most popular music sounds best in stereo, there are some really well mixed albums for surround that take full advantage.  These are not re-processed to fill in the extra speakers, but discrete tracks for each channel.  Sting and James Taylor have done a few, and there are a nice selection of classics from the Linn, Telarc and Polyhymnia labels on the SACD and Blu-Ray music multi-channel format.  Even the Eagles put out one on true multi-channel format (Seven Bridges Road sounds awesome when you feel like the band is standing in a circle around your head.)

This is a very different beast than stereo encoded tracks that are post-processed to some fake surround sound (Like DTS Neo:6, which to me sounds weak at best but more often sounds distorted.)

Anyway, sorry to go off topic like that . . .  🙂

~ Group "Weekend" ~

2 users thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel, ch100

Reply | Quote

@NetDef
I was actually going to expand my argument to include the true quadraphonic concept of years ago which I consider as legitimate as true stereo. Thanks for clarifying your previous post in the sense that you were not in favour of the artificial post-processing of which even the quite common 3D post processing of a 2 channel stereo signal is a fake.
I don’t have a problem at all with multi-channel recorded and reproduced signals, although I don’t find it practical for everyone’s conditions. For those who can afford the proper audition conditions and proper equipment it is all fine with me.
I consider that there is no need to say sorry for very good posts. 🙂

3 users thanked author for this post.

MrJimPhelps, AlexEiffel, NetDef

Reply | Quote

Good to see our Windows friends share similar views on other subjects.

To me, I find it is hard to get the same quality of sound out of 7 speakers or more vs 2 really good speakers, so I favor Stereo to put the limited budget where it makes the most difference, but I understand that the immersive experience of these setups can be interesting. I just don’t find it very practical and generally too expensive to my taste for the occasional gem in the pile of gimmick recordings.

I’m wondering if we will reach a point with psycho-acoustics techniques where we will be able to use a true multi-channel and output it on 2 speakers in a way to emulate almost transparently to the listener a multi-channel setup. That would be great. Anyway, off topic, but interesting to read you guys.

1 user thanked author for this post.

NetDef

Reply | Quote

NetDef wrote:

This is a very different beast than stereo encoded tracks that are post-processed to some fake surround sound (Like DTS Neo:6, which to me sounds weak at best but more often sounds distorted.)

I believe what you are saying is “discrete” vs “matrix” quadrophonic sound. I can’t remember which term was for “simulated” and which was for the real four-track; but back in the day I had a Craig “quadrophonic” stereo which was the “simulated” variety.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

So this gadget can eavesdrop on everything said in the room and relay it back to [who]-knows-where?

Windows 10 Home 22H2, Acer Aspire TC-1660 desktop + LibreOffice, non-techie

1 user thanked author for this post.

NetDef

Reply | Quote

samak wrote:

So this gadget can eavesdrop on everything said in the room and relay it back to [who]-knows-where?

Probably the Windows 10 Telemetry database. Every…single…word.

3 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, samak, NetDef

Reply | Quote

Rock wrote:

samak wrote:

So this gadget can eavesdrop on everything said in the room and relay it back to [who]-knows-where?

Probably the Windows 10 Telemetry database. Every…single…word.

And every single sound . . .

~ Group "Weekend" ~

1 user thanked author for this post.

samak

Reply | Quote

I always wondered how these tech behemoth come up not just with such names, but products?

Who in the world expressed interest in such a product–what user can even conceive of it, let alone consider it a need or of value?

A vast majority of products are conceived in total disconnect from users and their needs. They are driven only by their own needs and are clueless about satisfying actual user needs.

Reply | Quote

I am confused with “Woody’s” dedication to the privacy part of his site.  I would have thought that “Woody” would not recommend these privacy invasive microphones to at least to those who are concerned about privacy? Am I missing something or is there a double standard?  Be concerned with what Microsoft my inject into my OS in regards to privacy but no concern is applied to their or any of the other options available of invasive microphones.

Reply | Quote

I’m glad that someone like Woody is letting us know about these devices. It is clear that they are an invasion of privacy; so I personally wouldn’t get one. Therefore, without Woody and others talking about them, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing about them.

I didn’t take his post as a recommendation, but rather as just information.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Not the least bit interested in this kind of service. But I think from a standpoint of being useful. I think it has to be tied to a decent and robust ecosystem and have the ability to perform tasks that average users would want. Not sure this technology really works well in the real world from what I am hearing. But some I guess are excited over this sort of thing.

Reply | Quote