[HN Gopher] Microsoft buys Nuance for nearly $20B ___________________________________________________________________ Microsoft buys Nuance for nearly $20B Author : moritzplassnig Score : 533 points Date : 2021-04-12 12:48 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.axios.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com) | sam_goody wrote: | What will this mean for Apple? Aside for Siri, Nuance voice is | used for the Mac TTS engine, which I use quite heavily. | | In English, there are quite a few contenders for TTS, eg. Amazon. | Apple can find another vendor. But in some languages it is Google | voice or Nuance and there are no other games in town. | varispeed wrote: | So Microsoft can see your private repositories, your documents if | you use Office, your personal files (one drive), your company | communication (teams), now they will be able to listen what you | talk about. Where is this going? Should we trust this company so | much? I think companies like this should be split up. | severino wrote: | Well, they have been doing that for ages already, remember they | hold a monopoly on the personal computer operating system | software. Of course now it isn't as easy as it used to be as | they couldn't just force IE and Bing into everybody's phone, | but they're working on it. | AshamedCaptain wrote: | And the worst part, the deal is likely going to be approved (or | they would not be announcing it). There's just _no way in hell_ | the current political landscape allows "splitting up" a company | when it is still allowing to grow it even further. | [deleted] | mikro2nd wrote: | Years ago, deep in the fine-print of the Skype ToU, was buried | a clause in which anything you discussed via Skype granted to | MS a worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, etc. license to | anything mentioned. Is that still there? (Haven't used Skype in | many a long year, myself.) I always wondered why that clause | didn't render Skype unusable for any business or prospective | business conversation. | habeebtc wrote: | There was 2 Skypes. Skype and Skype for business. | | I can believe this ToU for the former. | 1123581321 wrote: | No, that is standard language that gives a website the right | to store and display content you post to it (e.g., to show | your avatar on a profile page or show forum posts or chats.) | Many websites use it; see this search for examples: https://w | ww.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22any%20time%20you%20... | | This is the text from Skype's terms: "Notwithstanding any | rights or obligations governed by the Additional Terms (as | defined below) if, at any time you choose to upload or post | User Submissions to the Skype Websites or through the | Software (excluding Reports and excluding the content of your | communications) you automatically grant Skype a non- | exclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, perpetual, | sub-licensable and transferable license of all rights to use, | edit, modify, include, incorporate, adapt, record, publicly | perform, display, transmit and reproduce the User Submissions | including, without limitation, all trade marks associated | therewith, in connection with the Skype Websites and Skype's | Software and Products including for the purpose of promoting | or redistributing part or all of the Skype Websites and/or | the Software or Products, in any and all media now known or | hereafter devised. You also hereby grant each user of the | Skype Website and/or Skype's Software or Products a non- | exclusive license to access your User Submission through the | Skype Website and/or Software or Products and to use, copy, | distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, perform and | transmit such User Submissions solely as permitted through | the functionality of the Skype Websites and/or Software or | Products and pursuant to these Terms of Use. In addition, you | waive any so-called "moral rights" in and to the User | Submissions, to the extent permitted by applicable law." | marcosdumay wrote: | So, those are both necessary terms due to the US asinine | idea that copying data within a system is covered by | copyrights, and general enough terms that allow MS to do | anything they want with any content you send through Skype. | | I don't see how the GP is incorrect. But I also don't see | how MS could improve anything here. | 1123581321 wrote: | I'm sure Microsoft could survive a court challenge. That | is not the same as saying getting agreement on this has | no value to them. | | The user was incorrect because they said, "anything you | discussed via Skype granted to MS a worldwide, royalty- | free, sublicensable, etc. license to anything mentioned" | in the context of their parent comment that said, "now | they will be able to listen what you talk about. Where is | this going?" These terms have nothing to do with | listening to your conversations and they don't grant any | rights to them. | | That's not to say Microsoft won't ask for such licensing | in the future. | kyberias wrote: | I find that very hard to believe. | 3v1n0 wrote: | I agree, not that different from Google either. | astrea wrote: | But Microsoft won't see as much scrutiny as any other tech | giant because they are so deeply ingrained in the | government's world. | berkes wrote: | And when they are scrutinized, that most probably puts the | scrutinizers themselves in a difficult position. | | The report in which the organization explains why | Microsofts products are privacy invading, monopolized or | otherwise breaching some law or regulation, that report | itself is most probably written on those Microsoft | products. | andrew_v4 wrote: | One difference I've found between MS and Google: MS is much | more annoying about everything they do. (Hear me out) | | I'd be surprised if there is any real difference in how | either company respects your privacy (neither does). But for | the most part, google seems to do its thing in the background | and leave you alone. Microsoft is constantly popping things | up asking you to rate this or that, flinging things you | didn't ask for onto your screen, basically the spirit of | clippy reborn into modern data collection practices. If I'm | going to have my information exploited no matter what I do, | I'd rather at least have it happen unobtrusively. | | (To be fair, this is just my perception. I was in a g-suite | shop for three years and now onto office 365 and I _feel_ | like it bothers me about stuff way more often the g-suite | ever did) | twobitshifter wrote: | Microsoft is annoying while Google is creepy. I'm annoyed | by the dark pattern designs used by Microsoft, but Google | will remember things that you about yourself that you | didn't at moments when you didn't ask for help. It's creepy | because you'd rather not know that a company has that | amount of data on your life. | aloisdg wrote: | Or Amazon | 3v1n0 wrote: | Well amazon can't be neither compared in this, is by far | way more _evil_. At least Google and MS keep some key | products open source, so most of them can be checked and | re-packaged if there are privacy concerns. | 2ion wrote: | Buy the stock and enjoy the ride. | zentiggr wrote: | So you've seen the move "The Circle"? Complete transparency | for everyone then? | newbie578 wrote: | I'm just curious, do you and the people who agree with you | think that Apple should also be split up? | | I personally am more Microsoft friendly, simply for the reason | that they always had and have an open platform to everyone. | | I'm honestly interested in people's experiences and views on | this topic. | zentiggr wrote: | An open platform to everyone... | | Apparently you missed a few decades of their development of | the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactics. | | As well as their tendency to throw exorbitant licensing | conditions on nearly everything they sold. | | As well as their repeated backdoor deals and maneuvers to | cause vendor lock in across the entire PC market. | anotherman554 wrote: | They did not always have an open platform. Windows Phone was | was a Apple style walled garden and Windows 8 did not allow | applications outside the windows store to use the "modern" | user interface. | | The only reason Microsoft is trending back to "open" is they | failed when they imitated Apple. | kmfrk wrote: | They also want a piece of Discord, so that's most private group | conversations along with the voice chats. | sjg007 wrote: | Nuance is text to speech in hospitals, government, call centers | etc.. This is a market access play. | bsean95531 wrote: | Well my comment is I would like to have all information on my | account send to my new address Sean Brennan 100 elk valley rd. # | 15 Crescent city Ca.95531 U.S.A. cell 1+(707)218-4485 email/ | sbrennan716526@gmail.com/ | sjb95531@gmail.com/brennansean95531@gmail.com thank you Sean | Joseph Brennan | endisneigh wrote: | One thing I considered doing long ago was creating middleware to | use NaturallySpeaking via an API and noticed in their license | agreement they have the following: A license for | the Software Package does not allow Licensee to use the | Software Package on a server. | | I'm curious how well this would hold up in a court. I only | mention this because Nuance is a pretty litigious organization. I | imagine they were bought pretty much for the patents. | tonyedgecombe wrote: | That seems quite common, I looked at a few PDF products a | couple of years ago and they all wanted to license server | installations individually whereas for workstations they are | happy to offer a redistribution license. | alberth wrote: | This is a duplicate of | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26774367 | | Note: everyone is getting this acquisition wrong. It's not about | Dragon and their Speech-to-Tex. This is all about owning an | enterprise Communication Platform (e.g. Contact Center, etc). | | I'll repost my previous comment from the other HN thread below: | | ---- | | Everyone is wanting to take on Twilio. Last September, Microsoft | first announced their Communication Cloud. | | A huge focus at Twilio now is moving upstream to the Call Center, | where Nuance is a significant player. So Microsoft picking up | Nuance makes sense. | | It's clear Microsoft sees communication services as a strategic | core part of their business. | | (Even at the consumer / gamer level with the rumored Discord | acquisition talks) | | https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/22/microsoft-challenges-twili... | ignoramous wrote: | > _Everyone is wanting to take on Twilio._ | | Well then we can expect Microsoft to swoop in for Twilio any | year now. | alberth wrote: | Given that TWLO market cap is $62B at the moment I wrote this | comment, and Microsoft would have to pay a premium over that | current valuation, I doubt they have the stomach to purchase | someone for $70+ billion. | | And given that Jeff Lawson, is both he founder and CEO of | TWLO - it's not entirely clear he would sell (unless the | number is just so high, he has the fiduciary requirement that | he has too - in which case I assume that would be north of | $100B+) | ignoramous wrote: | I'd presume $2T in MarketCap could buy you multiple Twilios | even at $100B. | | MSFT isn't shy from making large purchases unlike Amazon | and Apple: They take such massive bets comparatively | frequently. | somethingAlex wrote: | I'm not super deep into the world to NLP, but from what I have | kept up with, it seems that the state-of-the-art is almost | constantly open-sourced. I understand certain companies have | personal relationships already built which may be what MS is | after more so than the IP, but isn't there a "canonical" way of | building a, for example, speech to text system for your phone? | | Is there really a lot of NLP IP hidden behind corporate walls at | this point? I just assumed Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant, etc | were all using the same model architectures. Genuine question, | can anyone shed some light? | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I recently went through a ton of speech to text engines to test | them. There are a lot of open source research projects as well | as paid products, including amazon and google's paid products, | which I assumed would be paying for the best of the best. | Dragon (nuance's products) blew them out of the water in my | experience. I was very surprised. Sentence error rate is still | pretty shit across the board, so tiny improvements still make a | massive difference in usability. | raobit wrote: | is Dragon really used in large scale enterprise, unlike | siri,alexa for home automation, but i am hearing dragon let | alone nuance famous for its AI product for the first time | ionwake wrote: | There is only one English "conversational" voice that I see ( | which seems to be the best). | | Is there a way to make the others "conversational" if not, is | Zoe the best example? | | Did you find any competing product that came close? | | Thank you | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I'm referring to the speech to text product. What's the Zoe | thing? | gogopuppygogo wrote: | The hardest part of running a 10 mile marathon for most people | is the last mile. | | Lots of amazing open source out there but the difference | between 90% accuracy and 99.7% accuracy can be very difficult | to obtain. | | Not to mention, quantified data sets, especially medical ones, | can hold immense value. | iudqnolq wrote: | Absolutely. Take a look at [this list][gov-uk-list] of free | alternatives to Dragon. The only good free alternatives they | list are the closed source ones built-in to Windows and Mac. Or | have a look at [this announcement][nvda-announcement] touting | open-source work to integrate closed-source voice recognition | engines with an otherwise open-source piece of accessibility | software. | | gov-uk-list: | https://accessibility.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/assistive-techn... | | nvda-announcement: https://www.afb.org/aw/19/4/15104 | tapper wrote: | Plenty of blind people would get behind this if it happened. | https://t.co/vQIch9PLiW The skype thing was a clusterfuck. I | loved skype casts and they fucked it all. Discorde is OK now, but | dam does it make me feel old. I join a server and join a VC and | here a bunch of 13 year olds. I have to leave because I am 38 and | it's creepy to be talking to 13 14 yearolds on the internets at | my age lol I made a server for tech nerds and people who like | OpenWrt. https://discord.gg/KuNhWzvp5S. | unfocused wrote: | We only buy Nuance Dragon Naturally speaking for our lawyers. | It's the best product out there. So maybe they want the Dragon | technology. | msie wrote: | I'm shocked at the value of Pinterest (53 billon?). | xyst wrote: | In the next decade, there will only be 3-4 companies that own | everything tech. We will only have the illusion of choice | dmingod666 wrote: | I remember using Dragon NaturallySpeaking on a windows98 machine | - it was considered pretty good even back then.. | [deleted] | [deleted] | adler0901 wrote: | Hopefully they'll fix Nuance's terrible website and support. | glutamate wrote: | Hopefully they will fix a couple of bugs in Dragon as well. I | really would like them to have a release focused on bug fixes | rather than greater accuracy | pc86 wrote: | Are the bugs ML-related or with the app more generally? I've | never used Dragon but I'm pretty interested in the TTS space. | glutamate wrote: | Feels like the app, you often have to restart it, highly | variable (by orders of magnitude) latency, sometimes won't | start at all | mkl wrote: | More than a couple. It's the most unstable and unreliable | program I use on a regular basis. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | If they got around to improving the python hooks too, that'd | be pretty fantastic. | [deleted] | struct wrote: | What does Microsoft get out of this? They already have TTS and | deep learning transcription, what technical capabilities does | Nuance have that they don't have already (or can't develop for | substantially less than $20B?) | seibelj wrote: | Nuance owns a ton of patents and are extremely litigious. | bitwize wrote: | Probably a crapton of patents for voice recognition. | | Also, if you cannot operate a keyboard and must communicate by | speech to operate a computer, it's pretty much Dragon | NaturallySpeaking or GTFO. Integrating NaturallySpeaking tech | into Windows would be a huge boon and further cement Windows as | _the_ os to have if you have disabilities. | lunixbochs wrote: | I have users who have intentionally switched their speech | engine from the latest version of Dragon to Talon, for both | dictation and commands. Talon is cross platform and directly | targets accessibility use cases (far more than just speech | input). | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I switched from dragon to talon a while back... and then | back to dragon :-\ Not to bash though. You've built a great | product! | lunixbochs wrote: | I'm specifically talking about the new Conformer model, | available in early access as of ten days ago. What you | tried was likely the previous (circa 2018) model, which | is much less accurate than Conformer. | | This is a demo of Conformer in Talon: | https://twitter.com/lunixbochs/status/1378159234861264896 | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Oh cool! Yeah I was using whatever the beta model was in | December or so. | [deleted] | radicalbyte wrote: | Nuance are absolutely miles ahead of the competition the second | you're looking any other language than English. | Nimitz14 wrote: | I don't think this is accurate (and I work in this field). | eghad wrote: | And what do you suggest is better? I've worked with nearly | every tool (open source and closed) under the sun in | medical, industrial, and personal settings and Dragon | NaturallySpeaking/Professional was by far the best in terms | of accuracy regardless of prosody, accent, background | noise, technical terms used, etc. | | Personally I think they should've been acquired a decade | ago. | Nimitz14 wrote: | That answer depends on the language and on your use case. | It seems like you're asking about desktop apps, but my | parent was not talking in that context. Indeed there's | not a lot of choice there because there's no money in it. | eghad wrote: | I'm even talking vs custom trained models with Kaldi (was | working on a startup that was trying to create lessons | for public speaking so we could grab enough data to | tackle accent remediation/help those with aphasic speech | disorders) and again just reiterating, the out of the box | performance of Nuance's products are just better than | anything else. | | Obviously Nuance is more than just speech recognition, | but still not sure why people are downplaying how good | they were at it. | | EDIT: or maybe it's just too prohibitively expensive for | people outside of medical/legal fields to know about? And | don't get me wrong, I love that things like Talon Voice | are widely available for hands free coding, I just hope | this means NaturallySpeaking will supplant Windows | Dictation. | radicalbyte wrote: | I've used it in medical in a multi-lingual setting and | there it's basically the only game in town. | Nimitz14 wrote: | If you have the data and a specific domain you can focus | on then building a custom model [with kaldi] should | always win. That's what I've done in the past (beating | google, nuance etc.). You most likely didn't have the | data and/or didn't know kaldi well. | | > Obviously Nuance is more than just speech recognition, | but still not sure why people are downplaying how good | they were at it. | | Because nuance wasn't very good.. at least in all the | benchmarks I've seen. It's been a while since I compared | numbers it's possible they've improved a lot. They're | also known for kinda being dicks with the contracts they | offer in B2B. | makhmedov wrote: | I think GitHub got better since the acquisition. | globular-toast wrote: | Got any specifics to back up that feeling? | Scharkenberg wrote: | Free private repos? Dark themes? The ability to use your | Github account to log into other Microsoft places? | globular-toast wrote: | Why are you asking me? | rvz wrote: | Or much worse: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26667101 | easton wrote: | Isn't GitHub still in AWS though? Seems like they've just | been pushing buggier software lately, perhaps that's an | effect of being under Microsoft but it also might just be an | effect of growing faster. | m12k wrote: | And LinkedIn is still terrible, but no more so than they were | before the acquisition. Then again Skype just got worse and | worse and Wunderlist just got absorbed by the borg cube. So a | mixed record, but at least seems to have been getting better in | more recent times. | nicbou wrote: | Wunderlist was killed off before Microsoft ToDo achieved | feature parity. The web version wouldn't reliably let me log | in. After a few months I switched to Todoist and never looked | back. | imdsm wrote: | I must disagree. From a UX side alone, they've regressed, but | then there have been more outages since the acquisition than | before. | qwertywert_ wrote: | Jesus, can't companies just be the company they are y'know. | drewda wrote: | FWIW, I thought Google had pouched all of Nuance's key technical | staff years ago. | Zigurd wrote: | I am surprised at the amount of mention Dragon is getting here. | It has been a long, and at times tragic road. I worked at a | company that used Dragon's technology in a voice control product | for the original Macintosh. Mostly, I worked on a Windows version | for a multimedia architecture Intel was developing, which | entailed the acquisition of Spectron for a DSP OS. | | I got to meet a lot of the people involved at other companies in | the project, including the Jim and Janet Baker, who founded | Dragon, and many people at Intel up to and including Andy Grove. | It was remarkable that he took interest in what was a relatively | small project that was also distant from Intel's core products. I | also met Jo Lernout, the L in L&H, which played a role in | subsequent tragic events for the Bakers. | | All those people, and most of the technologies from those days, | are gone now. Dragon ended up a part of Nuance, which itself had | been called ScanSoft, and, before that, was a part of Xerox that, | if I recall correctly, was acquired by Xerox from Ray Kurzweil. | | ScanSoft became a roll-up of a large number of speech technology | companies. One of them was Nuance, and the roll-up was rebranded | Nuance. Another acquisition was L&H, which had collapsed due to a | financial scandal, which blew up after L&H had acquired Dragon. | The Bakers got screwed and sued Goldman, who did the L&H deal. | They lost. | | And that is your capsule history of Nuance. Sorry to give short | shrift to the acquired companies I have no firsthand knowledge | of. | | I believe the real story of Microsoft buying Nuance is that | Nuance owns an enormous number of patents. | bombcar wrote: | Is it just me or have speech recognition platforms like Siri | actually gone backwards in the last few years (roughly coinciding | with the AI/ML craze)? | | It feels (anecdata) that Siri is doing a bit better on voice to | tex when sending messages but much worse on simple commands like | "turn off living room lights". | tootie wrote: | You have draw a distinction between voice recognition and | digital assistants. Nuance is really just the former. | Spooky23 wrote: | Siri is a train wreck. I have a $1200 phone where it takes more | time to do "hey Siri FaceTime so-and-so" than to navigate. It | just sits and spins. | skrowl wrote: | Siri is especially bad when compared to Google Assistant or | Amazon Alexa, both of which are light years ahead. | | Usual Apple reliance on their fans buying their devices no | matter how bad the software is. | devoutsalsa wrote: | The thing that makes my iPhone worse is that it's hard to | use Google Assistant (haven't tried Alexa) with my iPhone. | I can't make Google Assistant the default voice interface. | I can say "hey siri hey google", but honestly I'm not doing | that. Google Assistant is decent, but it's not amazing. For | any non-trivial task, I still have to do look things up | manually. | | And while I'm ranting... the thing I hate most of about all | of these services is they don't have a profanity mode. In | the privacy of my own home I have AN EFFIN' HUGE POTTY | MOUTH. I love to curse. I LOVE IT. The fact that I can't | get one of these services to talk to me like a middle | school student is extremely disappointing. I don't want to | be politically correct when I'm talking to a virtual | assistant in a private setting. I want to say "Hey | goognizzle, are there any good mother f***ing movies | opening near me this weekend?" and get Samuel L. Jackson | style "Here's the mother f***ing movies opening on mother | f***ing Friday at the 5 mother f***ing theaters closest to | mother f***ing you."* | | Edit: TIL how to faux curse on HN. To type display | "f***ing", I need to type out "f\\*\\*\\*ing". | fastball wrote: | I was actually under the impression that this is because | Apple actually cares about privacy (unlike the other two) | and so is not hoovering up everything you say to it and | sending it to the cloud, but rather trying to do as much | inference as possible on your device. | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | _ding ding ding_ | | Apple makes money selling devices to people. | | Google makes money selling people to advertisers. | | As a result Apple's maps and ML assistant aren't as good | as Google's which harvests way more of people's data. | | I'm perfectly fine with this trade off. Lots of things | iPhones do are even presented at as the data never | leaving your phone at keynotes/press releases, and ads. A | bullet point notably missing from Android phones. I | deliberately use Apple's admittedly worse maps | application whenever possible because I know it's not | telling Big Brother about me when I know Google maps is. | millsmob wrote: | Edward Snowden revealed that Apple has been part of the | PRISM electronic surveillance program since 2012. | | I would agree that Apple is significantly better on user | privacy than Google or Facebook but that does not mean | that the NSA isn't sucking up all your data from Apple | Maps. | | Claiming that Apple isn't "telling Big Brother about me" | is at best naive and at worst dangerous misinformation | that could put activists and whistleblowers at risk of | having their location data harvested by the US war | machine. | cletus wrote: | Isn't it more likely that the quality of the voice | assistant isn't that important to most buyers? | Grimm1 wrote: | Anecdata but I've never even bothered to try Siri on | mine. I think you're on the money there. | Jcowell wrote: | In the flip side I use Siri everyday to turn on lights , | timers , custom iOS Shortcut commands , Intercom, play | music, and to find my phone when I can't locate it I'm my | house. | molszanski wrote: | I think so too. I am pretty sure that data will show it | too. Five years ago the NextGen computing platform that | will change the world where smart speakers. Now it is | almost a niche product. | darkwater wrote: | (gonna be downvoted to death) Usually Apple die-hard | buyers tend to minimize the importance of | software/features that are not sported by an i-device or | that doesn't work well there. When the 1st iPhone was | released, the lack of native apps was a selling point "we | use the web standards". When apps were introduced, they | were again a selling point (and still are to the present | day). | | The day Siri will work equal to/better than other | competing systems, it will be used as a main reason for | which you should buy an Apple device. The day before | that, it will still be something that users actually | don't want. | | EDIT: and to be a bit more clear that I'm serious with | this, it actually makes sense. If a feature doesn't work | well, you find ways around it. And if you are used to an | ecosystem, maybe you don't even know how well another | ecosystem works. And finally, if that ecosystem works for | you well enough - or that device - you probably really | don't care about that missing feature. | temp667 wrote: | I'm an apple buyer. Siri is terrible. Google assistant is | pretty impressive. I would switch BUT - google's | integration / support for things like work calendars is | so terrible, and their response to consumer / user input | so bad (ie, ignored despite #1 request for years and | years) that I'm like most Apple users. | | Apple (and Amazon) get many things right, and actually | seem to pay a tiny bit of attention to user needs. So | it's really not worth playing with the google stuff | because you end up in these weird nonsensical hells - | everything is amazing, and then they just drop the ball | in a key corner. | | For example, my google work calendar is EASY to integrate | with Alexa along with my personal calendar. Fantastic, | what's my schedule today works great. Google - falls flat | on its' face for this, despite being a paying customer of | their Gsuite. Their approach is just full of excuses | here, and ignores that this desired interaction works | well on their COMPETITORS devices but not theirs. | | Just one (of many) examples. They have some sort of | eventually consistent backend more often for stuff so you | also get weird states that you can't delete things, | changes take longer to "flow through" etc. | hnra wrote: | What are you getting at? Assuming bad faith, or that | Apple buyers are unable to evaluate purchase decisions | objectively? | darkwater wrote: | No, I'm saying that Apple buyers are usually satisfied | with their purchase for several reasons already. One | feature not working as expected is just ignored/not | needed. | bentcorner wrote: | I think that's an effect rather than the cause. | | My guess is that Apple management doesn't see voice | assistants as the "next big thing" to differentiate | themselves from the competition. I think VR/AR is where | they are focusing and Siri is on life support. | c0wb0yc0d3r wrote: | Is it really reliance? To me it seems like they know their | customers will just lay down and take it. | BoorishBears wrote: | I write apps for Android and design devices that run on | Android for a living. A friend once asked why I have an | iPhone, and my response was pretty simple: | | "I'll switch to Android when I can rotate my screen | animate the rotation instead of blanking out" | | They got it immediately. | | - | | For those not familiar with Android, your app's UI is | completely destroyed on every single configuration | change. Rotation. Plugging in a keyboard. Dark mode. | | Then the app has to redraw it's entire state from memory | in the new orientation. | | To do that tiny little thing I described above you'd have | to design your app to disable all built in configuration | handling (so now it's on you to handle swapping out every | resource when a language change happens, or dark mode is | turned on) then hand animate every element to its new | position on every screen. Needless to say, that's not | done. | | It was probably very convenient when they were designing | the G1 with it's 192MB of RAM, but to me it's a thing | that encapsulates everything wrong with Android as a | platform for me to use daily. | | I wonder what percentage of daily Android crashes in the | world are a direct result of this tiny decision. Or god | forbid, the amount of gnashing of teeth in how to write | Android apps in a "clean" way that manages with this... | | (And yes, iOS has state restoration too, but it's | strictly for returning from the background, so it's not | nearly as intrusive) | schmuelio wrote: | I didn't remember how android handles screen rotations so | I went and checked, I looked on both my phone and my | tablet on a plethora of apps: | | - YouTube | | - GMail | | - FireFox | | - Plex | | - RIF (Reddit app) | | - Material (HackerNews app) | | - Main home screen | | - Sudoku game | | All of them animated screen rotation just fine, with no | blank screen or glitching. Just a smooth animation of the | app screen rotating from portrait to landscape (and | back). | | It's possible that your assumptions are outdated and - by | your own admission - should switch back to Android. | BoorishBears wrote: | You realize I work on Android devices all day long right? | | I have 5 of them sitting in this room! | | You might not notice, but I assure you, they clear the | screen then fade back in. The exceptions are apps that | have to handle configuration changes anyways like games | or full screen video. | | It's not always a janky thing, phones have gotten fast | enough that the screen redraw is easily hidden behind a | half rotate followed by a fade in, but the point is that | the hacks are even needed in the first place. | | Their approach to configuration changes just adds a | massive footgun that trips up plenty of developers. The | number of high profile apps with semi-permanent bugs like | "I got scrolled back to the wrong part of the page when I | rotated my phone!" insane. | | A future without that is only coming once we get a | replacement for the current UI framework in the form of | Flutter or Jetpack Compose (both of which handle | configuration changes in new ways) | twobitshifter wrote: | With limited Android experience I can corroborate the | screen rotation stupidity. The latest google wisdom is to | use the Model View ViewModel pattern, which can help to | work around this issue. If you are using a "view model" | its a hack to largely avoid this screen rotation BS, but | I don't expect many Android apps are implemented this | way. Keeping up with google is like chasing your own | tail. | jonas21 wrote: | I haven't written Android code in a few years, but IIRC, | there's an attribute you can add to your manifest that | lets you handle the rotation without getting your UI | getting destroyed and recreated. This is relatively easy | to do and seems to be commonly done, at least for bigger | apps. | | Having worked in both Android and iOS development, I can | assure you that they both have some ridiculous quirks and | confusing APIs, but you eventually just learn to deal | with them. | BoorishBears wrote: | I already covered that: | | > To do that tiny little thing I described above you'd | have to design your app to disable all built in | configuration handling (so now it's on you to handle | swapping out every resource when a language change | happens, or dark mode is turned on) then hand animate | every element to its new position on every screen. | | That's not done in "bigger apps", it's done in apps that | have large areas not rendered with normal UI elements, | like games, or camera apps | | I've done some iOS work too, and while iOS has its issues | it "defaults" to making better apps, hands down. | | It's not unlike the user side of these platforms, iOS has | a more opinionated "default" than Android | | Jetpack is trying to fix that but it's "not that much, | extremely late" | | - | | But again, this is all missing the forest for the tree | here, configuration changes are just a tiny part of the | general "backend" choices that add up to a more powerful | platform in developing for Android... but a less useable | platform as a user | dijit wrote: | Statement about observed behaviour: | | > Siri is especially bad when compared to Google Assistant | or Amazon Alexa, both of which are light years ahead. | | Followed by a statement about the entire ecosystem, of | which only a tiny amount is Siri. | | > Usual Apple reliance on their fans buying their devices | no matter how bad the software is. | TomVDB wrote: | I'm always surprised when people shit on Siri. I use it all | the time for simple commands, and it works pretty reliably. | | I've never used anything non-Apple nor have I used any non- | phone voice assistant, so I'm not in a position to compare, | but as long as it calls the people that I want, sets timers | and alarms as needed, and routes me to my city of choice, | why would I care? | xnyan wrote: | >I'm always surprised when people shit on Siri. | | >I've never used anything non-Apple nor have I used any | non-phone voice assistant | | You're coming at it without experience. If you try the | google and/or amazon version, you may still find Siri | acceptable but I can absolutely guarantee you will not be | surprised anymore when people call Siri shitty, because | companied to amazon and google, it is. | james_pm wrote: | My favourite: | | "Hey Siri, make a Facetime call to Bob Smith." "Which Bob | Smith would you like to call? bobsmith@icloud.com or | bobsmith@me.com? | | How at this point does Siri not have even the most basic of | logic to know that it's literally the same person. That's | Apple's OWN service. | kelnos wrote: | I don't know about Siri, but I do believe Google Home has | gotten worse. My girlfriend and I mostly use it only for things | like turning lights on and off, pausing/resuming the | chromecast, setting timers, and asking for the weather. | | I've noticed it's been misunderstanding my girlfriend more and | more over the past few months (she has a slight accent to her | English, but nothing remotely difficult to understand), and | lately it's started misunderstanding simple things that I say | too. For example if I have Netflix paused and say "hey google, | resume", 30% of the time it will give me search results for how | to write a resume instead of unpausing Netflix. I've had the | Google Home for a few years now, and that literally has never | happened before now. To get it to work reliably, I have to | instead say "resume playback" or "resume chromecast". | racl101 wrote: | Siri is useless for the most part. I would not depend on it for | anything mission critical. | Cullinet wrote: | Lernaut & Haupsie went bankrupt in 99 holding the monopoly of | every viable dictation platform and the aftermath of a enormous | stock fraud that enabled management to hoover up everything at | ludicrous valuations eg IBM Via Voice for something like $4BLN | cash deal closed in unbelievable time, provided sufficient | obfuscation and destruction to lay the sector to rest for two | decades. | | Microsoft is making a intervention with things purchase the way | I see it. | | What they have to do is provide a Linux version or at least | O365 interop as good with Edge for Linux as Windows. | | Nuance support and products are hopeless - my subscription for | $120/yr stopped working with ios14 and the app refused to send | password reset emails and then we discovered that no online | account management existed and cancelled instead of relying on | 8/5/300 telephone queuing. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernout_%26_Hauspie | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_ViaVoice | dr-detroit wrote: | to be fair $4 Billion in 2021 is like $6000 in 1985 | everdrive wrote: | This never seems to be a popular opinion on hn, but this is the | ultimate Rube Goldberg machine: A complex ai built by a billion | dollar company, an enormous amount of man hours, only so that | switching a light switch because slower, and less | deterministic. I'm certainly not suggesting that there are no | valid uses for ML/AI, but digital assistants seem to be an | enormous waste. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Speech recognition goes way beyond digital assistants. Plain | old transcription is super useful, especially in terms of | accessibility. I was voice coding for a while because of RSI | and even as immature as the tech is, it saved my ass. | dalbasal wrote: | > this is the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine | | Salty, but I think I agree. | | It seems that with AI/ML, choosing/defining your problem well | is hugely important. Text to speech, even computer generated | natural language is a definite enough task that engineers | (and machines) have the feedback to make progress. | dntrkv wrote: | Ignoring the fact that the research isn't only used one for | one purpose, a proper assistant is hugely valuable to me. | | Simple things like: | | "Remind me to X tomorrow at 9am" "Add Y to the shopping list" | "Remind me to do Z when I get home" | | This is the only way I do reminders now and it's great. It's | especially useful while driving, or when I'm in bed nearly | asleep and remember something, I can just tell Siri without | having to get up and use my phone. | | And as far as smart home controls, being able to say "Siri, | turn all the lights on" or "Siri, turn the heater on" without | having to stop what I'm doing and walk around the house | flicking switches is really nice. | | Assistants provide a very noticeable QoL improvement for me | in many aspects. I think that's more than most other products | on the market can say. And that's not even touching on the | lives saved from not having to use your phone while driving. | realo wrote: | Yes but... Siri is (to me) not there yet. Promising but not | there. | | Siri is unaware of so many things. | | A simple command that would actually be useful (but fails | totally): | | << Siri, remind me to buy milk the next time I go get | groceries. >> | | And even then... I should not have to mention the part | about << groceries >>. The request should be perfectly | understood with a full stop after the word << milk >> and a | reminder should pop up automatically whenever I am in a | grocery (any grocery). | | An even better Siri would also be able to a categorize | things properly. For example, if later in the day I say << | Siri, I will need chicken, butter, salt and cardamom for my | next recipe >>, Siri should automatically add those to the | << milk >> next time I go to the grocery. | everdrive wrote: | I'm still not very impressed by this, as it can be totally | accomplished by a pad of paper and a pen. | | I'm believe the most valid use of AI/ML is to perform tasks | that people either cannot currently do, or cannot easily | do. For example, ai-based up-scaling of old video game pre- | renders. It's not really feasible for a person to do this | well, unless you simply rebuild everything with a team of | artists. And you could argue that up-scaling images for a | video game is trivial, since all video games are trivial. | But, the point is that the task at hand requires the help | of a computer, whereas a to-do list, or using a light | switch does not. | what_ever wrote: | Let's see the situations when you are setting those | reminders - | | 1. In bed, all ready to fall asleep, you get up to get | your notebook from your desk to add the reminder to your | notebook. | | 2. Cooking with hands all messy, you wash your hands, dry | them, go to your desk to add the reminder to your | notebook. | | 3. Driving at 40mph, so you pull over in a parking lot, | take out your notebook from your bag and add the | reminder. | | Yeah, I will take telling Google assistant to do this | instead. | Balgair wrote: | I gotta ask, can one not just use their memory and | remember to write those things down in a few minutes/the | morning? I know that kinda defeats the purpose of a | notebook. But, like, remembering to write down to get | more garlic should not be difficult in any way. Also, if | one is so perturbed at forgetting things then some other | questions and areas need to be explored. If one is having | difficulty remembering things this much, I fear that | there are much deeper issues and possibly some quite | serious health problems at play. | everdrive wrote: | 1. There's nothing wrong with keeping that same notebook | by your bed. Also, you might wake your spouse up by | talking to Google. | | 2. Don't get so messy when cooking, also it hardly | matters if your temporary notebook gets a bit dirty. | | 3. Don't multitask when driving. Taking your eyes off the | road is the main concern, but testing has shown driver's | voice control systems to be distracting to a significant | degree. And, voice assistants are at least somewhat | similar. | saemei wrote: | > tasks that people either cannot currently do, or cannot | easily do. | | A todo entry or flipping lights via assistants also | qualify as such tasks, if we broaden the definition of | "easy". The flow from having the thought of an idea or a | song to making a note or playing the song by just | speaking out loud is just so _convenient_ , without | having to context switch from whatever one is doing. | Controlling a set of IoT devices with custom commands is | another good usecase. | | Of course, not everyone has a workflow where a digital | assistant fits well _today_. However, I expect that their | usefulness will increase exponentially with time. We 're | surely heading to the sci-fi future where each house will | have a personalized digital guardian responding to the | wishes of the family, Jarvis style, no? | nsriv wrote: | I'm a fan of Google Assistant's usefulness and I generally | agree with this. The Assistant craze seems more justified | when you consider that companies like Google and Amazon are | using it as a way to build datasets. It's a strategic reserve | of data to build other things from (i.e. Google Duplex) and | it doesn't matter at their scale if there isn't a vision yet, | if a competitor is stockpiling transcribable voice data, they | need to keep up. | atat7024 wrote: | > The Assistant craze seems more justified when you | consider that companies like Google and Amazon are using it | as a way to build datasets. | | Basically every new goddamn trend that is _allowed_ to | occur is about how datasets can be compiled from such | marketed options. | | That's why we don't have first-class convergence devices | yet. It'd likely blend our home and mobile usage profiles | too much. | SkyPuncher wrote: | I've been having the same feeling with Google Assistant on | Android Auto. | | It feels like it does better in edge cases at the expense of | the main cases. | nojito wrote: | Because that's not what she was designed for. | | Siri is way more than a pure voice "assistant". | klausjensen wrote: | ...so he is using it wrong? | iJohnDoe wrote: | Holding it wrong. | CharlesW wrote: | > _Is it just me or have speech recognition platforms like Siri | actually gone backwards in the last few years..._ | | I've used both Siri and Alexa daily for many years, and used to | rag on Siri a _lot_. In my experience Siri has caught up to | Alexa on most fronts, and I find them more or less | interchangeable my common use cases (home automation, timers | /alarms, music, news/weather summaries, etc.). | | That's not saying much since the Alexa bar is quite low. But | like many Apple products, I'd characterize Siri's improvements | as "slow and steady" for almost a decade now. | i_have_an_idea wrote: | Siri is terrible, but have you tried Google Assistant? I find | it very accurate at recognizing my speech and very fast. It | feels like a vastly superior product and I definitely find | myself using it on my Google devices. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Yeah, came in to say this. Google Assistant has | _consistently_ gotten better year after year. I 'm surprised | it understands me sometimes. | suddenexample wrote: | Google Assistant is pretty good. But Google's on-device voice | transcription in GBoard (unsure if it's a Pixel exclusive) is | borderline magical. The delay between speaking a word and | having it appear on the screen is shockingly short. | i_have_an_idea wrote: | Oh yeah, the transcription is super good. I'm so sad it is | crippled on iOS by requiring some weird app switching to | work. Except for that part, it is super faster there too. | technofiend wrote: | Google's appliance recently decided to stream Dark Piano on The | Choice on Tune In when I say "OK Google, stream NPR.". Those | things are so far apart I assume someone took a bribe to | redirect customers for certain keywords. Lol. (Not really but | it was my first thought.) | | Google's online advice is whenever the assistant fails to work | just retrain the device. I remain skeptical that's the issue | because it's not like my way of speaking has changed. Instead I | have just switched to a new way to request what I need since | reporting the issue via Google's vaunted customer service | process seems likely to fail. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | Siri is brain-damaged. I am constantly disappointed with how | stupid she is compared to Alexa and the gap is widening. I try | to keep things as simple as possible with her because she | always disappoints me. I wish Apple would open up a tiny bit of | those 200 billion in cash reserves on improving Siri. | geodel wrote: | I mean I can understand how stupid siri is. I find it so | irritating that I always keep it disabled. But the point that | anything Apple doing bad is for the lack of spending is | hilarious. | | In fact I'd say Apple is just keeping spending money instead | of shutting it down. When IBM Watson AI sank like turd in | market it cut funding and let most of team go. I think Apple | doing same might be more sensible. | defaultname wrote: | I think Siri is intended to be more goal oriented. I use it | extensively, with very little complaint, daily- | | -set alarm -next song -set timer -set reminder (e.g. "Siri | set reminder 6pm close garage door") -send message to | <person> | | These comprise 99% of what I would want it to do, and it | does it marvelously. | iamatworknow wrote: | Same here. I replaced the few Alexa devices in my house | with Homepods over the last year and have notice no | difference in how well they work because I don't use them | for anything particularly complicated, and I don't _want_ | to use them for any more than that. The only thing Siri | seems to mess up for my usage is not interpreting things | I put on my shopping list correctly, but usually in a way | that's still recognizable (like "milk this'll"). | Lewton wrote: | > I find it so irritating that I always keep it disabled. | | Ah, if there only was a way to disable it fully. Even when | I disable Siri, it still randomly decides to call people | when I boil a pot of rice | DrBazza wrote: | You clearly haven't had the pleasure of trying to use voice | control in a Mercedes-Benz. It makes Siri and Cortana seem | telepathic by comparison. | vanderZwan wrote: | Have you tried speaking to it in German? | | (joking aside, is that voice control developed in the US or | in Germany?) | throwaway4good wrote: | German always works! (For cats at least.) | | Seriously - my guess is that they try to perform the | speech recognition client side (on the local hardware) | and are less agressive on how they collect data for model | training. | | Unlike Google or some company in China which make thin | clients that send everything to a central server where it | is much easier to recognize, correct and train. | gambiting wrote: | Got a 2020 volvo. The voice controls are insanely bad. I | can 100% reproduce a situation where saying "hey volvo, | switch off the seat heating" turns it up to max. | agotterer wrote: | Same with the Audi. I don't understand why all the car | companies aren't licensing the assistant technology from | the big tech companies and using it as the default. | | I get Siri via car play, but even car play is sandboxed | because it can't control things like the radio or | temperature. | stadium wrote: | The procurement decisions for the infotainment system are | made around 5 years in advance of the vehicle release. | The tech is obsolete before the car leaves the | dealership. | DrBazza wrote: | Android Auto at least works, and that in turn has voice | recognition that works. It's completely "meta" that I | have to use voice recognition on my phone to call a | number that triggers bluetooth that activates the hands- | free and speaker in the car. | idiotsecant wrote: | I would argue that in-car infotainment systems should be | nothing but a dumb terminal into your phone. We already | have devices with voice recognition, navigation, | multimedia, etc. Why don't we have a way to just use | that? | DrBazza wrote: | I completely agree. I wouldn't be surprised if this is | what happens. It's partly there already. | mattowen_uk wrote: | I've been looking for a single DIN car audio device that | is nothing more than an amplifier with Bluetooth, but | such a thing does not exist. My phone already does | Music/Radio/Maps - all I need is the car head unit to | connect to it and playback the audio through the car | speakers. I've even started thinking about some sort of | home built version using parts from a cheap Bluetooth | speaker system (minus the actual speakers). | bentcorner wrote: | There's plenty of old-school single DIN devices that have | bluetooth in them. You'll usually find they have a radio | and other junk (e.g. mp3 over usb) but most are fairly | simple and it shouldn't be hard to find one that stays in | bluetooth mode all the time. | mattowen_uk wrote: | Yes, but they all look awful! XD | rkalla wrote: | For the reason it took BMW so long to say yes to Android | Auto - Amazon/Google will happily license the tech but | want ALL the customer data off the car. | Alex5899 wrote: | If manufacturers use big tech voice assistance, it'd mean | extra subscription for the car owners...really sick and | tired of these "subscription" thingy. Microsoft Office | used to offer one-time purchase, now it isn't an option. | Are we going to have everything subscription eventually? | gambiting wrote: | Because even the "big" tech from "big" companies is still | shit. Have a 2020 LG TV with Google assistant built in, | and it's a piece of hot garbage. | | Example: I frequently switch between display profiles to | suit what I need. Saying | | "switch to cinema display mode" - works fine. | | Saying: | | "switch to user display mode" - 100% of the time results | in the TV replying "which user would you like to | select?". | | Like...it's not my fault that the dumb TV has the custom | profile named "User". | | Google probably spent billions on voice recognition, but | it's all worthless, because someone without an ounce of | imagination just coded it to react to the words "change" | and "user" as the user profile selector, the rest of the | sentence be damned. | | But back to cars - Google Assistant in Android Auto is | equally shit. Try saying "hey google, open spotify", then | "hey google, play music". 100% of the time, it switches | from Spotify to Google Music. It's insane. | bombcar wrote: | The move to companies naming everything "Brand Name | Generic Name" coincided with the move to voice assistants | in the worst possible way. "iTunes" is unique but "Apple | Music" is just two nouns - and we see this across so many | properties. | hobonumber1 wrote: | Is that the voice control in the MBUX, or in older | Mercedes? | DrBazza wrote: | In every MB I've been in, in the last decade, the voice | recognition could be described as "entertaining". | steve_adams_86 wrote: | Same in my Toyota. It has explicit instructions which, | despite a few honest efforts, I can't seem to follow well | enough for the assistant to work with any reliability. It's | also painfully slow as it fails to understand, making the | tumble into the pit of infotainment despair seem to happen | in slow motion. Not sure how it ever hit the market. | [deleted] | dominotw wrote: | >she always disappoints me | | siri doesnt default to female voice anymore. | sgerenser wrote: | Doesn't default to male voice either, you will have to | choose. I bet most people keep it what it always was | (female in the US, some countries like UK were male | voices). | JustSomeNobody wrote: | Oh come on! That was announced like 2 weeks ago! | eCa wrote: | Siri is a female name[1] so it makes sense to use 'she' | when humanizing her. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri_(given_name) | GekkePrutser wrote: | This is not much to do with the speech recognition itself, but | with the AI behind interpreting the commands. | | I'm indeed also a bit surprised that this hasn't progressed. | It's still not possible to say things like "Turn on my living | room lights and the hallway as well". It still feels very | scripted where you have to say things exactly the right way and | in bite-sized chunks to make it work. The same with Alexa by | the way. | quantumwannabe wrote: | I just tried that command with Google Assistant and it | worked. | bombcar wrote: | It's insanely more frustrating because there is _no standard | list of commands_ - I 'm perfectly fine saying things in the | way the computer needs (what is a command line after all) but | there's no reference listing what it is expecting so you just | have to do trial and error to find out what works. | armagon wrote: | And it is different for every skill (for Alexa, anyway). | | And a command that worked yesterday may not work today. | (Gah!) | Jcowell wrote: | I would say it has progressed compared to 10 years ago. | Speech technology in general to. I remember when YouTube auto | captions didn't even hit close to what was being said we now | they're way more usable. | mrkstu wrote: | Its been weirdly variable- my Apple Watch and the HomePod mini | seem much more accurate than my iPhone. | aquadrop wrote: | Youtube since recently (or I just noticed it) has very good | auto-CC, their voice recognition even works in noisier videos. | geewee wrote: | After having tried Microsoft's automatic captioning on Microsoft | Stream which is akin in accuracy to monkeys typing something | random on a typewriter, I think this seems like a good choice. | nradov wrote: | Live captioning in Microsoft Teams isn't terrible. | lhousa wrote: | Off topic but axios looks neat and tidy! I could read news every | day. Is there anything similar that covers worldwide news? | yalogin wrote: | I am confused how speech recognition tech is worth 20 billion. | It's not even on the most popular platforms like iPhone, android | or the desktops even. Can someone shed some light on this? | ghc wrote: | > September 15, 2005 -- ScanSoft acquired and merged with | Nuance Communications, of Menlo Park, California, for $221 | million. | | > October 18, 2005 -- the company changed its name to Nuance | Communications, Inc. | | So Nuance was worth ~$220MM at the time of acquisition. I'm | sure it's worth a lot more now but ScanSoft acquired like 50 | other companies too, including old voice recording giant | Dictaphone. | ignoramous wrote: | "Enterprise sales" and "health care": | https://investors.nuance.com/download/NUAN+%28Nuance+Communi... | f0rklift wrote: | Great buy for MSFT. Voice is the future of healthcare and they | just bought the best player in the game. | jonplackett wrote: | > The Burlington, Massachusetts-based company, for example, | powered the speech recognition engine behind Apple's voice | assistant, Siri. | | That is the last speech recognition engine I would ever want to | buy. | rvz wrote: | Now Nuance. | | It seems Microsoft is still actively continuing to buy more | companies and it seems Discord is still on the menu. | GekkePrutser wrote: | And Ubuntu! Totally expecting that in the news at this point. | CivBase wrote: | I was about to say RHEL would be more in their wheelhouse, | but then I remembered that ship has already sailed. | traveler01 wrote: | Really hope not, Ubuntu is like a beacon in the Linux world, | no matter if you like it or not. Microsoft purchasing Ubuntu | would mean the end of Linux desktop... | traveler01 wrote: | It's actually kinda scary to see Microsoft stretching its | tentacles like this. Only this year they bought Bethesda, | Nuance and there are rumours about them buying Discord and | other gaming studios. | | Microsoft's influence is growing deeply... | reducesuffering wrote: | They're looking at ~$50B / yr in profit, only about ~$17B | that's paid out in dividends. What else are they going to do | with $33B every year? | tupac_speedrap wrote: | Where is the antitrust lawsuit? | | Microsoft got done for this before (bundling Internet | Explorer with Windows) and if you look at where they are now | buying out businesses and using dark patterns in Windows 10 | to make people use Edge as well as implying it is a | fundamental part of the OS they are way beyond was acceptable | years ago. | traveler01 wrote: | You're right. | | They've been abusing their position and power for years now | and the Edge situation with Windows 10 is getting much | worse after the Chromium update. They force you to use the | said browser with some features, like when you use the | search function it automatically opens Edge browser, even | if you have another browser set as default. What's next? | Removing the option to set defaults for browsers? | | It's one of the reasons I'm willing to buy a MacBook | next... | bjt2n3904 wrote: | What does an all cash deal of $20bn look like? I'm assuming it's | really just an ACH transaction or something? There's not a convoy | of armored cars with silver briefcases or anything... Is there? | aembleton wrote: | It means that Microsoft are giving money in exchange for shares | of Nuance instead of giving Microsoft Stock in exchange for | Nuance Stock. | tinus_hn wrote: | So unfair that you are forced with your arms twisted behind your | back to spend that much money on such a terrible device! What a | gyp! | pinko wrote: | You may not realize, but "gyp" is a bigoted ethnic slur. Please | don't use it here or anywhere. | ArcturianDeath wrote: | So you flagged their comment for something you aint and that | wasnt directed at anyone? How infantile. Now, no one knows | what they said. | thedevelopnik wrote: | Yeah this is good to call out. A couple years ago I used it | and got dogpiled for racism and I had to say "ok, I will stop | using it, but who am I being racist against?" And I got | educated, which was good, because I did not know it is a slur | against Roma. | | A lot of people use it without knowledge of context, so | adding the context is important. | someperson wrote: | Several years ago I used a Nuance product named Dragon | NaturallySpeaking that had speech-to-text capability and adds | verbal accessibility features on Windows platforms (eg, say "Open | Word", speak your document aloud, then "Close Word") | | I had no idea they had enough sales to justify a $20 billion | valuation. Though to be fair, Microsoft tends to acquire | companies at high price tags (eg, Skype, LinkedIn, Minecraft) | compared to eg, Apple's acquisition strategy of smaller | technology focused companies (other than Beats headphones) like | P.A. Semi and PrimeSense. | | EDIT: Other comments say Nuance's patent portfolio may greatly | contribute to its valuation. | Spooky23 wrote: | Nuance OEMs and sells backend systems for IVRs and all sorts of | products. You probably interact with their stuff routinely and | not even know it. | | They also bought up a lot of small companies and products from | bigger companies and own a lot of patents. | iudqnolq wrote: | Yeah, but they've got their tentacles into a lot of complicated | sticky markets. | | For example, they've done all the work to get that same | software certified healthcare grade and convinced lots of | hospitals to adopt it for their doctors. They can sell that for | a lot more than they sell the essentially same software to you. | | If you go to a corporate website and see an "Industries" | section with Healthcare, Telecommunications, Finance, | Government, and more you know they're good at this sort of | rent-seeking. | ghc wrote: | Keep in mind that the company named Nuance is a big, 30 year | old public company with a lot of products, which acquired | Nuance and changed its name in 2005. According to Wikipedia | they did $2 Billion USD in revenue in 2016 and had $5.7 Billion | in assets. | udev wrote: | Also wasn't Siri based on Nuance technology? | | If so imagine them sales... | raobit wrote: | Can you link some source of it, can't find it | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Bear in mind, Nuance is often the voice technology behind other | companies' speech-based products too. Nuance technology | originally powered Siri, for example. | qntmfred wrote: | Nuance itself was actually spun out of an organization called | SRI (note the resemblance to the name Siri) | ocdtrekkie wrote: | This is incorrect. Nuance was a company that originated | decades ago, SRI did build Siri, using Nuance's speech | technology, but Nuance itself did not spin out of SRI. | qntmfred wrote: | https://www.sri.com/hoi/natural-language-speech- | recognition/ | | > SRI spun off market leader Nuance Communications to | commercialize the technology | | https://hbr.org/2015/09/the-president-of-sri-ventures-on- | bri... | microtherion wrote: | That's true, but technically, the company that is named | "Nuance" today was originally named "ScanSoft". They | bought the original Nuance and assumed its name. | | It's a bit like Symantec, which bought everything, | including its name. | raobit wrote: | Is Nuance into healthcare or speech/voice recognition? Didn't | knew about the Siri thing though | RandallBrown wrote: | Yes. My wife uses Dragon for her writing her clinical | notes. It's apparently pretty popular. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Nuance is a speech recognition company, but due to their | on-premise software which has a lot of integration options | and having custom distributions for medical and legal | jargon, they tend to be a go-to choice for adding voice to | professional highly-regulated industry platforms. | raobit wrote: | Can you link some source of nuance powering siri, i think SRI | was where it was built | ocdtrekkie wrote: | SRI built Siri using Nuance for the speech components, and | Nuance continued to be used for Siri under Apple: | https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/05/apple-siri-nuance/ | https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/30/nuance- | confirms-i... | newsclues wrote: | I think the way carmakers are going the auto industry could | justify most of the valuation. | yelloo wrote: | a little over a decade ago i contracted for nuance working on a | speech-to-text project for cell phone voicemail, either att or | verizon. the job was literally listening to actual customers' | voicemails and transcribing them (or correcting auto- | transcriptions) into the system. literally 6 to 8 hour shifts of | pure mind numbing work. we were told nothing about the tech | behind it but I wonder if any of that work compounded into some | of their in-use tech today, or if it was all just throw away. | | pointless story aside, their enterprise valuation at the time was | a little under 20% of what it is today, and the company remained | mostly the same until 2 years ago. wonder what the catalyst was | for their 5x valuation growth? | josefresco wrote: | In other news, how did Pinterest go from $11B to $53 billion in | roughly the last year? COVID-19 bump or something else? | reducesuffering wrote: | They really turned on monetization and the entire market was | discounted 33% last year. | | Pinterest went from ~$250m revenue / quarter to tripling that | in just 2 quarters. That's huge and unexpected that revenue | would climb that high. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | This is really, really unfortunate. One of the last on-device | speech companies is being bought out and moved into Microsoft's | cloud division. Expect nobody to be willing to sell you speech | recognition without a cloud subscription now. | throwawaysea wrote: | I agree. Even though acquiring is a good strategy for Microsoft | to an extent, it is also a problem to see continued | consolidation. How can anyone hope to compete against these | giants in the same product segments? They have unlimited cheap | capital and the ability to integrate an acquired product into | the rest of their products. Then there's the issue of | intellectual property and continued building of patent war | chests. If one of these companies copies your innovative | feature, you will have no recourse to sue them because they'll | be sitting on a mountain of random mundane patents. The fact | that these companies can make $20B acquisitions itself feels | broken from a healthy market perspective. | Godel_unicode wrote: | C+AI makes products that can work offline though (yes it has | the words Azure and cloud, no they aren't required): | | https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/with-azure-percept-microsoft-... | ocdtrekkie wrote: | The blog claims that it is so devices can continue to work | when it's offline, not that it didn't use Azure when it was | online, and also that the devices are intended to by deployed | via Azure IoT Hub. | | Which is to say, the blog doesn't make it sound like I can | use this without an Azure subscription, even if it works | offline sometimes. Whereas the Microsoft Speech SDK, I could | just include the DLL files and run with it. | whimsicalism wrote: | On the flip side, the open source tech has gotten good enough | that you can basically roll your own now. | athenot wrote: | Nuance has grown through acquisitions. They basically bought up | technologies and slapped a common name on them. But each one | retained its one oddities. So you configure one product with | INI-style files, another one with XML files, a module within | that one is configured with text files using configuration | codes... it's a royal pain in the behind. | | Hopefully Microsoft will eventually unify these apis and | configurations into something coherent. | brainzap wrote: | like they did with Azure? xD | kkielhofner wrote: | Not quite "on device" but Microsoft Azure provides Speech | Cognitive Services as containers that you can run in your local | environment: | | https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-services/sp... | | I believe Google Cloud Platform has something similar available | (not sure about AWS). | ocdtrekkie wrote: | I use desktop PCs as my "device", so hardware power isn't | really an issue here, but the fact that it's still usage | priced would be the big issue. | rllearneratwork wrote: | plenty open-source options are available. Checkout | https://github.com/NVIDIA/NeMo | yosito wrote: | Are you saying this discussion calls for some nuance? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | You don't know their roadmap or plans for Nuance yet you | attribute motive. | [deleted] | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Microsoft's focus here is pretty well known: They've retired | the Windows Speech SDK almost entirely in favor of Azure | services, which is where the Microsoft Speech team has moved | to, and the announcement explicitly stated Microsoft is | bringing this under their "Intelligent Cloud" segment. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | They claimed two things. That this would be exclusively | cloud and that nobody will sell you speech recognition | without a subscription. I doubt this is all. | lunixbochs wrote: | I'm in the on-device space, here's a recent demo of my engine | for a niche use case (it also does large vocabulary dictation | very well): | https://twitter.com/lunixbochs/status/1378159234861264896 | ocdtrekkie wrote: | I'll take a look! I am still looking for the right speech | recognition setup for my needs. I wrote an app that largely | expects text input of the spoken command, and I'd ideally | like to have hotword detection + speech recognition that can | be set up to output the detected command to my own software. | lunixbochs wrote: | What are you building? | ocdtrekkie wrote: | I have been hacking on a home automation controller (that | isn't particularly well written, to be honest) for a | number of years, and voice is one area I do not want to | have to figure out how to write myself. I am a bit | concerned about having to heavily integrate with a model | that requires I explicitly build sentence patterns in | their software, because it'd lock me in pretty heavily to | that solution. | | (My wife has been using Dragon for dictation heavily | lately, so that's a use-case that is intriguing to me as | well, especially if today's announcement means the death | of the Dragon product line in the near future.) | killjoywashere wrote: | Am I the only doc who despises Nuance? Dragon is definitely | Microsoft-style software: lots of exposed features with defaults | randomly set to "what no one would want, ever". Nevermind the | core algorithm never really seemed to work well for me. | Kye wrote: | People tell me I'm blunt sometimes but have you tried to price | nuance lately? Doesn't come cheap. | idclip wrote: | Rip. | [deleted] | achow wrote: | This is incredible for a company like Nuance. | | At the time of acquisition: | | Nuance: $20B, employee strength 6000. 3M/employee | | LinkedIn: 26B, employee strength ~12000. 2M/employee | | LinkedIn was much more larger, more 'visible' and perhaps better | talent attractor than Nuance at the time of acquisition. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Oh this is big, Nuance is not very well known to the public but | they are indeed very big in speech recognition. We used their | solution with automated support systems. | raobit wrote: | True, i came to know people appreciating it here that it is | better than siri,alexa in terms of speech recognition, is it | really that good. Support system you mean IVR? | qwertox wrote: | I knew Nuance sounded very familiar, but when I googled it, the | news were about an AI company, which confused me. | | DragonDictate / Dragon NaturallySpeaking, that's why it sounded | so familiar. | mwambua wrote: | $NUAN's spike from $45 on Friday makes sense. However, I'm having | trouble figuring out why they currently trade at ~$53 given that | the market knows that Microsoft will pay $56 for each share. | (https://news.microsoft.com/2021/04/12/microsoft-accelerates-...) | | Any ideas on why that is? | johncoogan wrote: | Pricing in a small chance that the acquisition won't go through | (maybe due to FTC clearance, but could be other due diligence | related items). | 16bytes wrote: | For those confused, this acquisition is due in large part by | Nuance's dominance in healthcare related products. From Nuance's | last earnings release[1]: | | "We are very pleased with the strong start to the fiscal year, as | we delivered revenue and EPS above our guidance range | expectations," said Mark Benjamin, Chief Executive Officer at | Nuance. "We continued to advance our strategic initiatives, | accelerating our cloud transition across our core platforms in | Healthcare and focusing on our AI-first approach in Enterprise. | In Healthcare, we saw solid performance in our cloud-based | offerings, growing cloud revenue 28% year-over-year. In | particular, we benefited from strong performance in Dragon | Medical & DAX Cloud revenue, which grew 22% year-over-year driven | by the ongoing transition of our installed base to Dragon Medical | One, as well as traction in international, ambulatory and | community hospital markets. Enterprise delivered another record | revenue quarter, up slightly from its previous record in Q1'20, | driven by particularly strong demand for our Security & | Biometrics solutions." | | Nuance has deep relationships built with nearly every health | system in the US and beyond. This fits quite well with | Microsoft's corporate focus. Yes, Nuance also has a lot of IP, | but I wouldn't expect any consumer facing changes (e.g. Cortana) | in the near term. | | [1] | https://investors.nuance.com/download/EX%2099.1%20Press%20Re... | hbosch wrote: | I worked years ago at a major cell phone mfg company, and we | were comparing vendors (circa 2013-2014) for the voice | recognition/transcription software. I remember two of the | leading options were SoundHound (dba then as "Hound", which has | since gone to market as a voice solution[0]) and Nuance which | was a company not many of us had ever heard of. | | At the time, Hound actually was very very good at language | recognition and impressed everyone quite a bit. Compared to | Nuance, the experience of conversing with Hound was better as I | remember. However, Nuance had the edge in language support... | while Hound was great for Western dialects of English, and some | others, Nuance supported Mandarin. End of the day it was no | contest which product we had to go with. | | I'm not surprised that Nuance had continued to be an industry | leader all these years. | | ... | | 0. https://www.soundhound.com/hound | samstave wrote: | And now you know why there will never ever ever be "free | healthcare for all" in the US because this is how profitable | sickness is. Plandemic. | ejb999 wrote: | >>"free healthcare for all" | | There never has been and will never be 'free healthcare for | all' - its not free, it's only free for some people if some | other people pay for it. | dopidopHN wrote: | You pay with your taxes. Is that this hard to understand? | | In France when my boss give me 1 euros, he has to give 0.33 | cents to a found that goes toward my healthcare. Then most | things are << free >>. From regular doc appointments to | oncologists. | | Here I pay 500$/month, and then some co-pay and then some | more. | | It's not that different. | thebruce87m wrote: | I've never seen anyone argue that. Well, until now anyway. | rand49an wrote: | America spends the highest amount per capita & the most in | total terms by a large margin and they aren't able to cover | 100% of their citizens. | | Nobody thinks that healthcare is magically free in the rest | of the world, but at least in countries with socialised | medicine people pay into a system that covers everyone in | society. | FireBeyond wrote: | I'm curious who you think is actually out there laboring | under the assumption that healthcare becomes absolutely, | and literally, free? | inopinatus wrote: | Given the venue of these remarks, and the otherwise | reductio ad absurdum of the alternatives, we can surmise | this is referring to free as in speech, not free as in | beer, and they mean sante libre, to distinguish it from | proprietary licensed healthcare. | [deleted] | fakedang wrote: | A lot of Europeans in the lower taxpaying tiers who love | to shit on Americans (especially when the American | healthcare system has been getting so much coverage the | past decade). | FourthProtocol wrote: | Some examples would be useful. Yes, many that don't pay | tax benefit from the government, and yes, you can view | that as a working class paying for the unemployed. | | Imagine, if you will, a 50-year-old woman on the dole | (she's paid a monthly sum by the government). In Germany, | for instance, this is only paid if she can prove that she | applied, and continues to apply for work/seek employment. | | It's a bit of a mad circle - she doesn't want work, | because she has a comfortable, if meagre life. Of course | she dutifully applies for employment every month, and | occasionally lands an interview. | | She's been out of work for so long though, that's she's | no longer employable. She's too old for manual labour, | cannot type, doesn't do Internet. And so no one will have | her. | | It's not ideal for someone expecting to get out what they | put into the system, but it's a social safety net that's | better than forcing people out onto the street. Will all | the problems that brings. | | And yes, the 50-year-old gets "free" healthcare. Which I | contribute to, from my hard work. And I think this system | among the best on the planet. | kelnos wrote: | > _And yes, the 50-year-old gets "free" healthcare. Which | I contribute to, from my hard work. And I think this | system among the best on the planet._ | | I wish more people had that attitude. | | Instead, in the US, we have people actively making their | own lives worse because they don't want to give others | things they don't believe they "deserve". | | If taking more out of my paycheck would get all the | homeless people off the streets, I would happily do that. | I personally believe that everyone has a right to | housing, but even if I didn't care about people, I'd be | ok with it because getting homeless people off the | streets makes my life better too. | | Ensuring that people aren't insecure about housing and | food translates to lower crime rates and safer | neighborhoods. | | It makes me genuinely angry that anti-welfare people | don't get this, and actively lobby against their own | interest. I'm sure there are some people who just believe | that welfare programs don't work, and are against them on | those grounds, but most of the rhetoric I hear seems to | be around not giving people things they haven't worked | for and don't deserve. | haerra wrote: | Uhm, I guess that you have some inner frustrations, as I | have yet to meet someone who thinks that healtcare is | literally free. | fakedang wrote: | If you're talking about people who for some reason don't | understand European tax laws (which is a lot of people in | the mainland and in the US), yeah I'm quite frustrated. | | My issue is with people who pay nil significant taxes in | Europe gloating ignorantly about how European Healthcare | is free, and won't stop shitting on American Healthcare. | Yeah, your healthcare is cheaper than the US but it isn't | free. There is a whole bunch of middle class folks and | upper class folks paying for it. And I'm not even | supporting the American model. | xwolfi wrote: | Yeah well I'm a European who was in the middle tax | bracket before fleeing communism to move to China and I | can tell you: the situation in Europe is unsustainable | with all the youth and elders voting for "free | healthcare" (it's so hard to make them understand it's | free for them but oh so expensive for many others) while | the people who actually find ways to produce a bit of | value foreigners might be interested in, work for free to | pay for it... | | The American healthcare system is not an healthcare | system, it's a disgrace. The European ones are vast | communist machines that can't pay for themselves. The | best is the one I see here in Hong Kong: you pay small | taxes for it, you pay for anything non critical, you get | a socialized base service of average quality with very | very good private healthcare that you pay for. And a | network of banks providing health insurance for an okay | price. | | For instance, you can use taxpayers money to give birth | if you want, but you don't choose the date, you don't get | a room for long and no way you get a C-Section unless you | risk dying. In the private hospital you pay a lot, get | all those things, but it's not at all necessary. | | I really like this compromise, which in hindsight just is | obvious and shows you the shark Americans and the hippies | Europeans just can't make compromises. You shouldn't have | to die because you can't afford a surgery, and you | shouldn't have to work 4 months a year for the State | because it can't afford to give surgery for every wart on | every butthole. | oblio wrote: | > The European ones are vast communist machines that | can't pay for themselves. | | Do you have any proof of that? | AdrianB1 wrote: | A family member is an expert in this area working for the | government in a high position for a long time and they | update quarterly the estimations on when the system will | fall, not if. The current calculation is less than 15 | years and it is fairly constant for the past 10-15 years. | In the discussions they have between countries the | situation varies a lot, from countries that are going | from default to default like Greece) or close (PIGS) to | countries that are almost stable (Germany), but on | average the situation is bad. | | For example I was told 10 years ago never to expect to | retire because there will be no money for the public | pension system when I will have the age. It is on an | accelerating fall and the politicians are messing it up | even further, pensions were increased by law by 40% about | a year ago: if there is no future, you can start ruining | the present. | ptsneves wrote: | This is a bit of a misterpretation. Yes they make that | calculation but to know how to adjust the age of | retirement and because there are shunt laws that limit | the expenditure to a given percentage of gdp. | | Portugal(p in pigs) is such a country and this shunt law | is a 2/3 law meaning if debt ceilings are overridden by | government or parliament it will be struck down by the | constitutional court. just recently there was such a law | and it was promptly sent there. E | FireBeyond wrote: | When I left Australia, which is now 14 years ago, so | grain of salt: you paid 1% income tax for Medicare, | unless you were above a certain income level, in which it | became 1.5%. If you opted out of the system, you could | purchase private insurance, and would not be subject to | this tax. There was a floor, where below or near "minimum | income" levels, you were also not required to pay this | tax. | | > For instance, you can use taxpayers money to give birth | if you want, but you don't choose the date, you don't get | a room for long and no way you get a C-Section unless you | risk dying. | | This makes absolutely no sense. Short of induction | agents, which have varying degrees of efficacy, if you're | not getting a C-section, the healthcare industry, | hospital, don't decide when you give birth, you/your baby | do. | fakedang wrote: | I don't know why you want to draw comparisons to the | Australian system here. We're comparing European to | American, and the vast amount of ignorant thought in | Europe about how healthcare is free. | FireBeyond wrote: | Because the comment I replied to mentioned nothing to do | with Europe? | | > There never has been and will never be 'free healthcare | for all' - its not free, it's only free for some people | if some other people pay for it. | | That's what I replied to. I also mentioned living with | one European system, and a similar Australian system that | are both largely considered "effectively free (or at | least, out of pocket)", and how no-one living under | either system that I've been a part of, thinks that their | healthcare is "literally free". | | In fact, most of the tropes about "It's not really free, | you're paying for it with taxes!" come from Americans | bemoaning the insidious evil that they consider | "healthcare for all" systems to be. It's a straw man, | built up by some to decry "socialism". | nl wrote: | (Australian here) | | Note that the 1% (or 1.5%) Medicare levy doesn't fully | fund the health system here. | AdrianB1 wrote: | I opened my last paycheck, the tax is 10% (Eastern | Europe). | | There is some undeniable truth in this discussion: people | with higher income pay for the people with lower income. | 10% of 100,000EUR is a lot more than 10% of 20,000EUR. | emj wrote: | Considering disposable income; 10% of 100,000EUR is alot | less, taxes are not noticable for me as a high income | earner. | kelnos wrote: | And so what? That's how a functioning society should | work. I would much rather have 90kEUR after health care | taxes than 18kEUR; the higher earner is still coming out | far ahead. | | It's not like the private insurance system is "equitable" | either. I am very healthy and hardly ever need to see a | doctor, but my insurance comes in at around $650/mo | (mostly paid by my employer, but the money still has to | come from somewhere). I definitely do not incur anywhere | near $650/mo in health care costs of my own; I'm paying | for care for people much sicker than I am, who incur | health care costs higher than what they pay into | insurance. | dmingod666 wrote: | Because 20K is a smaller number than 100K. | | Taxes work with the basic assumption that people need | some money to live, there is a humanitarian aspect to it | if you see the govt positively or you can say, people in | govt dont like thier head too far away from their | bodies.. | andybak wrote: | > before fleeing communism to move to China | | Is there some level of humour here that I'm missing? (and | yes I know all the subtleties around the Chinese system. | But still - that's a heck of a sentence to throw out | uncritically) | fakedang wrote: | He makes a lot of valid points about the unsustainability | of the European system, but yeah couldn't help a chuckle | at that line. | chipotle_coyote wrote: | The "valid points" about how socialism will surely drive | all of Europe bankrupt within the next decade have been | repeated for the last seventy years. I'm sure they're | right _this_ time, though. | fakedang wrote: | Of course, the European model is extremely sustainable if | you can ignore the not insignificant amount of cost | cutting and lack of coverage of certain drugs for orphan | diseases. You can literally just talk to any doctor or | nurse in the NHS system and ask them about how quality of | care has declined over the past decade, while their | professionals' workload has only increased unsustainably. | And we're talking about one of the best run healthcare | systems in Europe here. | | It's of course nothing like the American system which is | a bastardization of Healthcare, but it's no utopia | either. Costs of delivering healthcare have increased in | Europe mostly due to wasteful spending. | | I don't know if you bothered to read his points after the | first line, but he clearly outlined the Asian model of | healthcare, and clearly criticizes the American model. | FireBeyond wrote: | > lack of coverage of certain drugs for orphan diseases | | This is literally the case in the US too. It's not | "right" in Europe, when it happens, nor is it in the US. | | US pharma companies have, repeatedly, discontinued | cheaper, and in some cases, the only effective, | medications when they've deemed them not profitable | enough. | jxramos wrote: | I don't get it, isn't China communist too. Has that | become an in name only thing? But yah there's no silver | bullets as someone likes to say, tradeoffs are something | adults recognize and have to manage. | barbazoo wrote: | > the situation in Europe is unsustainable with all the | youth and elders voting for "free healthcare" (it's so | hard to make them understand it's free for them but oh so | expensive for many others) | | I think you might misunderstand how the systems work. | First of all, there is no such thing as European | healthcare. Every country has their own system. In | Germany for instance, 14.6% of your post tax income go | towards healthcare (capped at a post tax income of EUR | 58.050). No one thinks it's free and it isn't free for | anybody except for those who really cannot afford it | which have never heard anyone critizise. | ZuLuuuuuu wrote: | That is not reality, that is what American right thinks | about European people. We of course know that we are | paying for healthcare with our taxes, but we also know | that in the end what we pay is lower than what we would | pay without a government healthcare system. So we chose | this healthcare system consciously. | FireBeyond wrote: | As someone who was born under the NHS in Scotland, grew | up in Australia under its Medicare system (and the | introduction of partial privatiz(s)ation), and has lived | in the US since 2006, no-one is laboring under that | misapprehension. Medicare tax is indeed a line item on | Australian taxation paperwork. | fakedang wrote: | I don't know where you get the impression that I'm | criticizing the NHS or a nationalized Healthcare service. | I'm all for a nationalized healthcare service. My issue | is with people who pay nil significant taxes in Europe | gloating ignorantly about how European Healthcare is | free, and won't stop shitting on American Healthcare. | Yeah, your healthcare is cheaper than the US but it isn't | free. There is a whole bunch of middle class folks and | upper class folks paying for it. | vagrantJin wrote: | Bruh. | | You have deep issues. No thinking thinks anything is | free. Its free as in I can walk in get treated and walk | out without having a cent or anyone asking about my | credit details. The difference is in the quality of care | as gov run hospitals have much tighter budget constraints | and can't treat patients with as much delicacy as private | medical institutions. | fakedang wrote: | > You have deep issues | | Thanks for the personal attacks. Highly appreciated /s | | > The difference is in the quality of care as gov run | hospitals have much tighter budget constraints and can't | treat patients with as much delicacy as private medical | institutions. | | Yet somehow places such as Singapore, Thailand and Japan | manage to provide top notch healthcare even in government | institutions, healthcare that is much better than most | private European hospitals. | | And yes, my point was exactly about how a not | insignificant number of people in Europe seem to think | that their healthcare comes for free (because they don't | pay tax for a variety of reasons). | inopinatus wrote: | No; everyone knows that goods and services, including | those supplied by government, come at an economic cost. | | This slur of outright idiocy via economic illiteracy is | fiction, and applying slurs to people from a specific | region on the basis of their economic circumstances is | bigotry 101, so the personal admonishment above is hardly | surprising. | vagrantJin wrote: | Sure. Personal attacks are uncalled for and I retract | that part of my statement. | | But the rest of my points still stand. | kelnos wrote: | Even if there is a large group of people who believe | that, why do you care so much? How do their beliefs, as | foolish as they may be, actually negatively impact you? | [deleted] | ratsforhorses wrote: | Just a thought, "paying nil significant taxes" would mean | lower or nil income...? we could also include refugees, | prisoners in that group I guess.... these people, may | also be providing a huge extra to society in the form of | being low paid, having future potential or not adding to | externalisation costs such as increased infrastructure | needs higher income earners do... also I think the main | criticisms of the US health system is that insurance is | in most cases part of the job contract and that there are | huge (cost) inefficiencies due to insurers battling over | coverage costs with health providers... as an aside I | live in Romania and as a low income earner I forgoe | insurance because it's a lot cheaper to get care when I | need it | jschwartzi wrote: | > insurance is in most cases part of the job contract and | that there are huge (cost) inefficiencies due to insurers | battling over coverage costs with health providers. | | To say nothing of how maddening it is to have to change | doctors every time we change jobs, or to lose coverage | for certain conditions when we change jobs, or to have to | perfectly time certain life events such as childbirth or | pregnancy to either before or after we change jobs, or to | make sure we don't get sick during the probationary | period while we're changing jobs, and so on. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | The more correct term for universal healthcare rather than | free should be cheaper as everyone with such systems wind | up spending much less on healthcare than the USA. We | basically spend as much per capita on our public system | than other countries do on healthcare overall, and then we | also have a private system that is even more costly. | [deleted] | srmarm wrote: | Yes / No | luke2m wrote: | Yes, that makes sense | jesseryoung wrote: | I work in healthcare software and recently did a spike building | a voice assistant for the EMR. We compared Google, AWS, Azure | and Nuance's voice and intent recognition and Nuance blew all | the others out of the water. When it comes to understanding | medical terminology Nuance is way ahead of anything other | providers have. | | Dragon has been around for 23 years and has been THE product | for VR in the medical field for at least the last 10 years | (from my experience). | ocdtrekkie wrote: | I think in a lot of cases that is because they tried. You can | tell 90% of Google's focus is ad consumers when they develop | new services, whereas Nuance has sold medical-focused | dictation tools for over a decade. | conanbatt wrote: | Oh wow. The Dragon headset is a very strange product space. It | is used by non-tech savvy doctors to avoid having to type into | the EMR. | riahi wrote: | It's not just the non tech savvy. It's substantially faster | to dictate text than type it, especially if your hands are | occupied with the computer doing something else (ie | interpreting radiology exams, dictating a treatment course or | visit note while simultaneously reviewing labs). | tootie wrote: | I'm pretty sure Nuance also does the Comcast Xfinity voice | remotes. They are actually really well done. And it's a | humongous customer to have your claws in. | iFred wrote: | They do. The amount of magic involved to make it work is | amazing from an engineering perspective. | dkdk8283 wrote: | Universal remote control makes all Comcast remotes. | ryanSrich wrote: | It's literally better than Siri. I don't know how, but it is. | I'd say it's even better than Alexa in terms of its ability | to recognize things I say. | tootie wrote: | The biggest leg up they have is that their product works in | a very controlled domain. Siri is out there trying to be a | complete interactive AI human and failing miserably. The | Xfinity remote just controls your TV and does it | smashingly. I found the Alexa-driven voice control on my | FireTV to also be a pleasant experience compared to regular | Alexa. | kelnos wrote: | The TV remote only has to understand TV-related things, | like inputs, channels, volume, and program names. Siri and | Alexa have to understand _everything_. | meroes wrote: | Not true. | | "Xfinity Home, dim the bathroom lights to 40%" | | "Youtube Yuri Gagarin" | | Are both things it knows how to execute. | tomcam wrote: | I use Siri every day. Former radio guy. Siri is horrible | even for me | jxramos wrote: | I think they've been at it for a pretty long time with old | products like Dragon. A friend used to work there some | years back and said they pretty much perfected speech | detection up to some very reasonable error rate. I imagine | they've just continued to cover all the dark corner cases | and irregularities and accents etc. | pie420 wrote: | No, the real challenge now is how do you minimize the | amount of processing power needed, or bandwidth needed, | and how do you do all this while minimizing translation | time to under 0.5 seconds. | | Obviously accents and irregularities are also areas I'm | sure they are focusing on, but I imagine that optimizing | for real time, mobile and low CPU power devices is a huge | focus for them. | geenew wrote: | They ran dragon on contemporary computers, and that was | very good at least 10 years ago, probably more. So they | have voice recognition working well on what would now be | considered very constrained hardware. | marktangotango wrote: | I have this and it really is quite remarkable. The entire | voice integration in the x1 set top box is really polished. | Other than the occasional "wow, this is pretty good for | comcast!" I hadn't given it much thought until now. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | Can you remove the ads from the EPG? | nickfromseattle wrote: | Microsoft already has relationships with Comcast [0] and | nearly every major telecommunication around the world. | | [0] https://cloudsolutions.comcast.com/apps/64168/office-365# | !ov... | | And 100% agreed, the voice is great on the Xfinity remote. | Was very impressed. | [deleted] | mrkramer wrote: | >Microsoft tried to buy TikTok's U.S. operations last year in a | deal reportedly valued between $10 billion to $30 billion. | | >Reports suggest it's in advanced talks with gaming chat app | Discord for a deal worth more than $10 billion. | | >A report in February suggested Microsoft was eyeing a takeover | of Pinterest, worth $53 billion on the public market. Last | September, it bought gaming giant ZeniMax Media for $7.5 billion. | | Microsoft is in full yolo mode since all other big tech companies | have antitrust lawsuit against them. Microsoft spent its time on | the cross in the 1990s and early 2000s now they will acquire | anything they can. | CivBase wrote: | MS's strategy as of late seems to be buying their way inyo | being competitive in every market instead of dominating a few | markets. I suppose this gives them a great deal of stability | and allows them to develop a massive ecosystem of | interconnected products and services. It's still a concerning | practice... but not as obviously unethical as the monopolistic | behavior displayed by other big tech companies. | mrkramer wrote: | This was their strategy since always or since they achieved | monopoly in PC OS market which ensured them huge profits | which they used to acquire competitors or to break into some | industry or niche. They would push acquired product or | service to millions of Windows users meaning they had huge | distribution channel and scale potential. | | Microsoft's first acquisition was in 1987 of Forethought Inc. | or developers of what is now Microsoft PowerPoint and they | bought them for only $14m. Today PowerPoint as a product and | as a brand is worth billions. | paxys wrote: | The fact that none of these companies are competing with | Microsoft also makes it easier. That's not the strategy Google, | Facebook etc. normally use. | mrkramer wrote: | Maybe they are not competing with them right now but they | have aspirations to break into their industry and then | compete with them. They figured out it was easier to acquire | them than try to build it from the ground up. | genericone wrote: | Easier to acquire AND easier to divest from if there are | any monopoly-related/law-related issues. | CivBase wrote: | Speech recognition in consumer electronics continues to be slow, | unreliable, and a privacy nightmare. I can't tell you the last | time I saw someone use it seriously. There are reasonable | applications for it, but they are few and far between. I wonder | what makes it worth $20B to MS. | | Top comment as I'm writing this says Nuance has a strong presence | in the healthcare device market, but I'd be surprised if that | alone was worth the purchase price. | outside1234 wrote: | Talking to Hololens? | itsbits wrote: | GitHub at 7.5 billion around 2019 looks like a steal.. weird | other software giants didn't try for it.. | CuriousPerson23 wrote: | A lot of the giant companies are really concerned about anti- | trust. Microsoft is under pressure too, but there would be an | uproar if Google or Apple bought given their pressure around | the app store. Having access to the code that writes the apps | would be tough to pull off... | itsbits wrote: | true...Google does have similar product which surely could | have caused more anti trust uproar..MS in this space luckily | doesn't have such issues.. | v7p1Qbt1im wrote: | 100% they tried. Can't imagine Google and Amazon not wanting | GitHub. | | But with regards to big acquisitions, MS is ironically and | quite surprisingly able to fly under the radar in terms of | antitrust. Literally every other tech company is not. | intricatedetail wrote: | Microsoft can see a lot of data which means they can have | plenty of dirt on people involved in anti trust stuff. Beyond | certain point companies can do what they want. | sethhochberg wrote: | I'd guess its a bit less irony and more that by virtue of | having already been through various high-profile antitrust | investigations, MS is somewhat uniquely well positioned to | understand how to avoid/manage similar scrutiny in the | future. | aloisdg wrote: | True GitHub is where the community is. | Maven911 wrote: | For those wondering some of Nuance strengths in speech: Multiple | award winning Very domain oriented and not just general speech | Supports many languages | | They have also had a boost in stock with covid and more people | using remote speech services | dalbasal wrote: | I think a lot of big acquisitions make "sense," given the current | market. | | The most successful companies have lots of cash, high share | prices, and amazing cash cows. They _could_ borrow for (almost) | free, so resources are practically unlimited. Their R &D is | already well funded. Most of their big, growth oriented | endeavours are not cash-constrained. There are usually no | factories to build or production to scale up. | | Google tried "20% time." They tried "let many flowers grow." | Those things seemed ambitious at 2007-scale. In 2021 terms... new | flowers need to be S&P 500 companies to represent growth, instead | of just clutter. "Meaningful growth," for Alphabet, is a big | number. | | How else does a MSFT, Google or (especially) FB put $20bn to | work? Acquiring "just works." | | Of course, there are in-house alternatives. Waymo is an in-house | investment by Alphabet that's bigger than this Nuance | acquisition... especially if you consider the $bns Waymo will | continue to need until some unknown future date. Self driving is | looking more hopeful (certainly to investors) than it was when | waymo started.... but waymo is still a dubious investment. | | Consider that Google could have bought any car company, for about | as much as waymo will cost eventually. Car companies have loans, | so you could quibble the math... but details. | | Acquiring is easy. The path of least resistance wins >50% of the | time. We have that dynamic here, both in the human/managers sense | and in the arbitrage-like incentives in the market currently. | bombcar wrote: | Acquiring is a simple way to show the Board/Shareholders that | you're "doing something" - but I suspect it's rarely very | successful in the long run. Unless you acquire a business that | ACTUALLY provides some synergies you're just on the path of | transitioning from a successful company to a poor imitation of | Berkshire Hathaway. | | It does have the advantage that you can "spin off" your | acquisitions once they fail to do anything interesting (though | this is more commonly seen in sunset industries/dying companies | (see AOL, Compaq, etc)). | wayoutthere wrote: | I think this was once true, but is significantly less so in | the context of cloud platforms. It's very easy from a | business model standpoint for Microsoft to integrate Nuance | NLP modules with Azure and start selling access to them at | list prices very quickly. | | You don't need to hunt new customers with a marketing plan; | you likely already have customers with these needs in your | pipeline so it's a matter of making sure your AEs know what's | happening. Everything is simpler at scale in a cloud business | model, which is why these 3 companies in particular are | eating the world. | CerealFounder wrote: | Its rarely the syngeries that make it work, instead its often | they bought a business they leave alone that has much more | room to grow. | dalbasal wrote: | IDK if it's rare that synergies work, so much that it's | common for synergies to fail. | | Consider Google. They acquired Youtube, Android... Google's | skillset was perfect for taking these proving concepts and | making them 1080px, so to speak. Now, Youtube and android | feed users & data to the adwords cash machine. Youtube and | android defend the adwords castle, denying competitors. | Fantastic synergy. | | OTOH, no company will ever find a synergy with ebay. They | have spiky bits where companies are supposed to have | copulation bits. | _delirium wrote: | Google acquiring YouTube also had good synergy because it | caused bandwidth costs to plummet, which YouTube was | having a hard time managing as a startup. The company was | bleeding money on bandwidth, because they were an end | user who had to pay an upstream ISP for transport [1]. | Once Google acquired them, suddenly they're on | effectively a backbone network and have settlement-free | peering with all kinds of other networks. That drove | bandwidth costs down to near zero according to one | analysis [2]. | | [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/cheaper- | bandwidth-or... | | [2] https://www.wired.com/2009/10/youtube-bandwidth/ | dalbasal wrote: | Yep. | | Also, " _just give it as much resources as it needs, we | 're rich_" was a game google had already proved willing | to win with gmail. | | It's easy to lay the tactic out in retrospect. Fund | "resource hogs" that users don't pay for. Bet on long | term bandwidth costs going down. Bet on major consumer | monopolies being valuable, long term. Sounds great and it | was great. | | OTOH, _lets pour $mns into a "business" that we bought | for $bns, that has no revenue... because in 15 years we | will be worth $trns and it will all sound like | peanuts_... this was once considered imprudent business | planning. Google were willing to do it. Others weren't. | Only a few even could. | tachyonbeam wrote: | Can't you just acquire a successful business and then do | nothing? Just let the business you acquired keep being | successful? It's not that different from investing in the | stock market, except that you can have more control over the | business you acquired if you need to down the line. You also | then own their IP, which might be the most important part. | benreesman wrote: | I think that's what GP meant by poor imitation of BH. | perardi wrote: | Apple has had some decent ones. P.A. Semi, notably. And for | $278 million dollars, the ROI on that was ludicrous. | | But overall, yes. I can think of so many large-scale | acquisitions that didn't go so swimmingly. - | AOL/Time-Warner - Ford/its stable of luxury brands like | Jaguar and Land Rover - Compaq/HP - | Daimler/Chrysler | | It seems like these "big" mergers tend to now show the | synergies people promise. Maybe it's just too much culture to | integrate. | mbesto wrote: | Tech M&A guy here. | | This is survivorship bias at its finest. | | How about Facebook's acquisition of Instagram? Google's | acquisition of YouTube? Android? DoubleClick? Amazon's | acquisition of Twitch? I could go on. | | For the record, yes there are VERY many acquisitions that | go wrong, especially when you get to the $B+ value. The | parent's characterization seems in line with the "no one | ever got fired for using IBM" and that sentiment is grossly | unjustified for M&A. There are a bunch of other factors | that go into corporate strategy. One example - buying a | competitor to eliminate competition and thus protecting | future dollars. | bredren wrote: | Skype's eventual acquisition by Microsoft is an interesting | one. | | Can anyone contextualize the horse trading that led to | that? | | >September 2005, eBay acquired Skype for $2.6 billion. | | In September 2009, Silver Lake, Andreessen Horowitz, and | the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board announced the | acquisition of 65% of Skype for $1.9 billion from eBay. | | Microsoft bought Skype in May 2011 for $8.5 billion. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype | tambourine_man wrote: | >Apple has had some decent ones. P.A. Semi, notably | | And, let's not forget, NeXT. | | Probably one of the best U$400 something million ever | spent. | microtherion wrote: | It's funny how there seems to be so little correlation | between acquisition prices and eventual value. The PA | Semi acquisition was an enormous success at what was at | the time a tiny price. NeXT was an enormous success, | though $400M at the time was a bet-the-farm price for | Apple. | | In contrast, while I'm sure Beats has easily paid for | itself, $3B was not exactly cheap, and the results were | not 10x PA Semi. | mbesto wrote: | I think it's impossible to accurately determine the ROI | of an acquisition with incomplete data. There's way too | many factors at play. | tambourine_man wrote: | I remember people being flabbergasted by the price they | paid for PA Semi. Dividing the price by the number of | engineers seemed indeed ludicrous. And yet, here we are. | microtherion wrote: | At the time, there were only 3 comments on HN I could | find. One of them was certainly questioning the decision: | [1] | | But wmf was right on the money [2]: "Maybe Apple thinks | they can outdo the Cortex". | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=171511 | | [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=171879 | perardi wrote: | I thought about NeXT, but that was a bit of a weird one, | because NeXT executives and technology replaced _a lot_ | of Apple's executives and technology. That ended up being | a stealth takeover by NeXT. | mbesto wrote: | > you're just on the path of transitioning from a successful | company to a poor imitation of Berkshire Hathaway. | | You mean Berkshire Hathaway, that's current market cap is | ~$615B and hails arguably one of the most successful | investors of all time as its CEO? That Berkshire? | | I don't know about you, but I'd happily be just 1/100th as | successful as how that model turned out. | ffggvv wrote: | google maps and youtube and instagram were acquisitions | | 2/3 of those arguably are among the most important parts of | their respective companies | dalbasal wrote: | I was actually thinking " _Satya, you know that Berkshire is | you end game here... right?_ " | | I agree, but I think MSFT (and friends) are in this | predicament no matter what. What's the alternative? | | That said, I don't really think BRK is the end game. | | For one thing, Berkshire is kind of an exception. There are | plenty of smaller conglomerates that _are_ actually like | Berkshire, but most pretend not to be conglomerates. They | pretend to be far more cohesive & synergetic than Berkshire. | | Also, Alphabet shows that synergies can be easy to find. | Youtube, Android... This generation's acquisitions need to be | 10X bigger than that. But... these companies are in uncharted | waters. No company has wielded free resources at the scale | that MSFT now operates. They aren't the only one currently, | but they don't have predecessors... unless we go back to VOC | or somesuch. | | OTOH... Satya is accidentally in the same position Buffet | intentionally sought: Sitting on a pile of capital that must | be allocated. | kelnos wrote: | > _I agree, but I think MSFT (and friends) are in this | predicament no matter what. What 's the alternative?_ | | Well, they can just stop growing, and continue doing what | works. If that thing stops working (or they have a good | belief that it will stop working before too long), they | have two options: 1) do nothing, and gradually wind the | company down and return capital to shareholders so they can | reinvest it elsewhere, or 2) pivot, and accept that the | things they are pivoting to will be a rounding error in | their finances for years while they grow. | | Obviously this is disastrous in our current economic | system; a company that tried this would watch its stock | price fall into the toilet before too long. But absent | that, why not? | | Consolidation is what will bring us to a corporate-run | dystopia. I would much rather the world be filled mostly | with small and medium sized businesses, with every market | open to a lot of competition and even cooperation (on | standards, not on prices). But I know, that's just a pipe | dream, and humans generally suck at cooperation when money | is involved. | dalbasal wrote: | >> a company that tried this would watch its stock price | fall into the toilet.. But absent that, why not? | | lol | | >> Consolidation is what will bring us to a corporate-run | dystopia. I would much rather the world be filled mostly | with small and medium sized businesses... | | The alternative to that is trust busting, perhaps. I was | commenting on the market logic, so to speak. If we're | optimistic, maybe it'll be a corporate-run utopia. Zuck's | not great, but I think this generation is kinder than the | Carnegie/Rockefeller days. | | Look... if Bezos, Zuck, and such continue on trend, | they'll soon be very rich. Bigger than the Rockefeller. | Their companies will be one par with the VOC/EIC in terms | of market cap, but I don't know if it's really comparable | to that. | | Google/FB are sketchy, if trust-busting comes into play. | Advertising is sensitive to both regulation and | trustbusting. A ban on snooping, manipulation and overly | vigorous advertising would hurt advertising. Trust- | busting, like separating adwords from google, hurts | advertising monopolies too. | | Meanwhile, what happens if a regulator messes up and | breaks FB? Would the world lack for social messaging | media? If Ford stops making cars, fewer cars are made in | the world. If fewer FB likes happen, more sploosh | sploshes happen and all is well in the world... | | More likely though, no help is coming. That being the | case, I think the tech bros aren't the worst candidates | for trillionaire status. Someone had to be it. I'm glad | it isn't the real estate bros. | pedrocr wrote: | > I agree, but I think MSFT (and friends) are in this | predicament no matter what. What's the alternative? | | Returning money to shareholders is the common solution for | when you don't know how to grow more and profitability in | the businesses you're already in and don't have any | particular advantage in entering new ones. I'm not saying | that's what they should be doing but sitting on a pile of | capital that you don't know what to do with isn't a new | problem that we need to invent new solutions for. | nemothekid wrote: | My own uneducated position is that is a new problem | because shareholders _don 't_ want their money back. | Shareholders have been piling money into stocks [1], so | if you gave them the money back they would likely just | put it right back into Microsoft (or, more likely, it | would signal that Microsoft doesn't know what to do with | the money, so people would pull out of Microsoft to | invest somewhere else). | | [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-money-poured- | stocks-past... | dalbasal wrote: | "Returning money to shareholders" is largely a | consequence macroeconomic policy or state of affairs. It | is, evidently, not actually a choice that CEOs currently | have in practice. Dividends and/or buybacks are one of | the powers shareholders do tend to wield, in practice. | They want to invest more, not less. | | Also, IDK if it _is_ a common solution. Nothing is really | common at MSFT-scale. A free cash flow like Google, | Alphabet, etc. is almost unprecedented. | | Meanwhile, I do actually think that this is better for | shareholders. IMO "Synergies" is a term somewhere between | euphemism and a boomerism but for the purpose of | "shareholder value" it doesn't matter. At | Monopoly/Unicorn/FAANG scale, there are big opportunities | for synergy. Think Google-Android. | | Why is Nuance being owned by Alphabet less efficient than | being traded independently or owned by private investors? | Why is Alphabet owning vanguard more efficient than | owning Nuance? | | The answer to those question can have no actual impact on | reality. If the acquired business is cash generative, | they can left to their devices. If the parent company | doesn't borrow, then "efficiency" never becomes explicit. | Explicit efficiency is relative to cost of borrowing. | Implicit efficiency is implied by share prices... and at | this point things get foggy. | john_moscow wrote: | Based on my personal experience, since 2008 more and more | companies are about showing somebody that you are "doing | something" with their money. It could be the VCs, it could be | the EU grants, it could be the stockholders, but that's the | business model you get with the abundance of capital and low | interest rates. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-12 23:00 UTC)