Nothing demonstrates how kludgy and proprietary the voice platforms are like what they call apps on their platform. I snort out loud every time I see the promotion pictured above on the Alexa Show: “Skills are like apps for Alexa”. So why aren’t they just called apps?!?
We’ve just spent the last 13 or so years teaching people that the brands that contain the information and services they want are “apps”. We did that after the prior 13 years of teaching people that brands that contain the information and services they wanted were “websites”, which earlier on, we emphasized with “www” and a “.com”. The .com indicated that the brand on the world wide web and different than an AOL “keyword”. Millennials and Gen Yers, ask your parents about AOL keywords. Start the conversation by robotically saying, “You’ve got mail” for extra awkwardness.
The point here is that changes in how users interface with content and services are a mess for a while, but we’ve really made a mess of it with voice. Think about the logo marketing vomit that brands need to promote in addition to their core marketing message to reach customers:
Find us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Pinterest, Alexa, Google, Bixby!
Something’s got to give, and I think the naming convention in voice should be the one to acquiesce here. Let’s call them voice apps if we must. Either way, let’s not make them think they have to do anything other than say “Open X” when they want to talk to a brand. That could be on mobile, smart speaker or automotive. If the consumer wants to ask Bon Appetit for a recipe, they should say “open Bon Appetit” and know they are talking to Bon Appetit in some branded, verified way. If the brand doesn’t exist, there should be rules that prevent squatters or imitators like domain names. I’ll repeat it; we need open protocols and best practices for voice if we want to create great user experiences - which will create a healthy voice ecosystem for all of our businesses.
But it’s just not an app naming convention that’s causing usability issues; it’s the proprietary developer toolsets for each platform as well. Our good friend Bradley Metrock tweeted out the following earlier today:
I would advise following his thread on Twitter and checking out this Bixby post as well. He is spot on that this demo and the toolset Bixby is offering voice developers are outstanding. At Project Voice, one of the most impressive presentations I saw came from Adam Cheyer reviewing Bixby’s plans and tools. One of the most compelling selling points he made to developers was “you will have access to the same internal APIs that our developers have”. After having spent three years building apps for Alexa and Google (yes, APPS!), I know exactly how appealing it is to have more visibility into the distribution platform to create a better user experience.
Here’s the problem. Do I have to download the Bixby IDE to get the API access and the great features they offer? If I’m a developer for a brand, you are telling me I need to add the Bixby IDE to the Xcode, Android Studio, Alexa Developer Console, Dialogflow and Visual Studio/Sublime tools I use to develop for other distribution platforms. Or I need to hire someone new to service this distribution. Samsung is huge, but behind mobile, web, Google Assistant and Alexa, I’m afraid too many development managers will give the following reaction when asked to take on more development overhead for Bixby:
To address Bradley’s question, it’s probably why we are not seeing more talk about this great tool Bixby built. Voice is still a hard sell at big companies because of the confusing user experience described above. Most brands are asking “why do I need voice?” when all my users are already on these other platforms. How does using voice convert users faster to a sell? How do I make money? How does this reinforce my brand value to the customer? Hard to make more resource investments until those questions are answered. Right now, the only thing we seem to be doing is making Alexa and Google smarter without a clear payoff.
Fortunately, the Bixby team seems to be doing a great job of supporting independents like Voicify or Voiceflow -which is smart because those are great tools. I hope they also reach out to the folks managing the Jovo framework as well. How great would it be to create a podcast capsule (app!) like the example in Bradley’s tweet and have it work everywhere?! If we give independents the protocols and the access, they can help make that a reality.
At Spokestack, we’re trying to help both brands and developers reduce the stress of adopting and experimenting with voice in their mobile apps by creating open-source libraries for voice. We’re also focusing on mobile, where most brands already interface with most of their customers anyway. We’re hoping they will appreciate the transparency and control they will have with conversations held within their own branded app environment.
We’re also reaching out to development partners and agencies who can add mobile voice development to their already great smart speaker or mobile development tools and services. There is enough business for all of us as we make this transition. We just got to work together - platforms, developers and brands - to create a better, more holistic voice experience. We’ll get there.
If you’re looking for help with mobile voice for your brand or development program, please let us know!
Thanks again for being a part of the #voice community and connecting with Spokestack. We’re grateful to be a part of it. If you have any comments, please let us know.