this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
-1 points (42.9% liked)
Hacker News
202 readers
3 users here now
This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.
Rules
0. Keep it legal
- Keep it civil and SFW
- Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this the non sequitur used nowadays to explain removal of features? "We're removing it to give you a better experience"??? That's bloody hilarious.
Be honest at least dammit. If you don't want to maintain a feature, because it's against your best interests, say so. Users are not stupid, and should not be implied to be stupid with this idiotic "it's for you lol" discourse.
(I don't even use Botnet Assistant.)
"focus" is the key word. There are only so many resources, and if you have to spend time maintaining and testing features that don't get use, you can't spend those resources on the features that do get use, or on anything new.
Is the end result truly a better experience? Who knows, but the phrasing isn't quite as nonsensical as it seems.
It's hard for Google to claim that they're focusing resources (e.g. dev time), given the list of features being removed. As one of the HN comments said, quite a few of them "seem to fall under the umbrella of "features that actually make the assistant an assistant"/connecting the assistant to other apps". In other words, integration - that's core functionality for an assistant and they likely know it.
I would define the core capability as "takes audio, extracts meaning, matches to intent, executes intent". Everything else is an implementation of a specific intent/action. Some of them are likely fragile and depend on integration APIs that may be changing or going away.
Ultimately, yes, it is corporate-speak to sugarcoat what looks like a net negative for users at the current time with nebulous claims of a better future.