I see that past requests around Mycroft AI integration for voice assistants have been closed. I am opening a new thread to continue to show users who are looking for this functionality.
I own multiple non-voice assistant Sonos products, but I would like to buy an assistant-enabled one, however I don't use any of the assistants currently supported. Please work on OEM integration for Mycroft!
I admittedly don’t know that much about Mycroft, but why would a customer want to use mycroft instead of Alexa, Google, or Sonos Voice Control (SVC)?
Would the mycroft software run on the speakers themselves (as SVC does), a local server/hub, or a cloud server (like Alexa or Google)?
I admittedly don’t know that much about Mycroft, but why would a customer want to use mycroft instead of Alexa, Google, or Sonos Voice Control (SVC)?
Would the mycroft software run on the speakers themselves (as SVC does), a local server/hub, or a cloud server (like Alexa or Google)?
Mycroft AI is a replacement for Alexa/Google Assistant/Siri that is privacy focused and open source. I am a user who refuses to use any of the commercial voice assistants because of both privacy concerns and a need to customize my tools further than they allow. I run my own home automation on open source tools (instead of relying on off-the-shelf systems from Google or Apple) and while I like the concept of smart speakers that you can talk to, I do not want one that I cannot trust and modify at a deeper level.
Like most tech centralization in the past decade, Sonos supports the commercial brands driven by large companies, but not alternative technology that serves the same purpose. I do not want to use walled garden tech when I can help it, so the ability to link my Sonos hardware to the tools I do use is important.
Just like Alexa, Mycroft provides OEM tooling to allow hardware manufacturers to embed the voice assistant in their products. The resources are available for this implementation with no real complexity difference than Alexa, however because Mycroft isn’t backed by a major corporation with an advertising budget, it is viewed as not worth the effort from companies manufacturing hardware.
No argument with anything you’ve said. But then, I also don’t expect Sonos to be interested in supporting a system that has relatively few, albeit ardent, supporters. As a for profit company, I’d expect their efforts to be on efforts that affect more substantial potential sales numbers.
Would I love to see them support this? Sure. Do I expect them to dedicate the resources necessary to do so? Sadly, no.
In tech, this seems to be a common issue. In order to get more people to use something, it requires investment and use by companies, but companies don’t want to invest in different tech that has a relatively small impact. So no one ends up using that ‘new’, potentially better, and more privacy oriented ‘standard’.
No argument with anything you’ve said. But then, I also don’t expect Sonos to be interested in supporting a system that has relatively few, albeit ardent, supporters. As a for profit company, I’d expect their efforts to be on efforts that affect more substantial potential sales numbers.
Would I love to see them support this? Sure. Do I expect them to dedicate the resources necessary to do so? Sadly, no.
That’s the point I made at the beginning of this thread. They have closed past requests due to lack of interest, so I am showing additional interest. Mycroft usage is fairly small, and companies like Sonos passing it over doesn’t help, however I am highlighting another instance where I would buy a more expensive Sonos product than what I have if it had support for the technology I am looking for.
Believe me, I have watched the resistance to supporting smaller, less profit-driven options for many years in the industry as someone who builds software in some of the largest consumer-oriented for-profit segments.
No argument with anything you’ve said. But then, I also don’t expect Sonos to be interested in supporting a system that has relatively few, albeit ardent, supporters. As a for profit company, I’d expect their efforts to be on efforts that affect more substantial potential sales numbers.
Would I love to see them support this? Sure. Do I expect them to dedicate the resources necessary to do so? Sadly, no.
That’s the point I made at the beginning of this thread. They have closed past requests due to lack of interest, so I am showing additional interest. Mycroft usage is fairly small, and companies like Sonos passing it over doesn’t help, however I am highlighting another instance where I would buy a more expensive Sonos product than what I have if it had support for the technology I am looking for.
Believe me, I have watched the resistance to supporting smaller, less profit-driven options for many years in the industry as someone who builds software in some of the largest consumer-oriented for-profit segments.
You’re comparing Mycroft to Alexa and Google Voice, but completely ignoring Sonos Voice Control (SVC). Why would Sonos invest in another voice control system when they already have the 2 most popular options as well as their own system they’ve invested in and still have a lot of room for improvement on?
The most likely reason would be if MyCroft is somehow better for controlling music, accessing additional services, and still locally run on the speakers themselves. Is it? Or would the reason be that MyCroft is geared towards smart home control? Even then I think Sonos would be better trying to partner with other companies that make Matter controllers and try get most of the heavy lifting offloaded, Or is because you have the ability to do some custom stuff that most people would have no interest in?
That’s the point I made at the beginning of this thread. They have closed past requests due to lack of interest, so I am showing additional interest. Mycroft usage is fairly small, and companies like Sonos passing it over doesn’t help, however I am highlighting another instance where I would buy a more expensive Sonos product than what I have if it had support for the technology I am looking for.
Believe me, I have watched the resistance to supporting smaller, less profit-driven options for many years in the industry as someone who builds software in some of the largest consumer-oriented for-profit segments.
Nothing special about closing that thread. All older threads are closed, regardless of interest.
That’s the point I made at the beginning of this thread. They have closed past requests due to lack of interest, so I am showing additional interest. Mycroft usage is fairly small, and companies like Sonos passing it over doesn’t help, however I am highlighting another instance where I would buy a more expensive Sonos product than what I have if it had support for the technology I am looking for.
Believe me, I have watched the resistance to supporting smaller, less profit-driven options for many years in the industry as someone who builds software in some of the largest consumer-oriented for-profit segments.
Nothing special about closing that thread. All older threads are closed, regardless of interest.
Should clarify my phrasing, didn’t intend to imply causation:
Previous closed threads where they have also cited lack of user interest. New thread simply because I cannot reply in existing threads to show support.
I’d like to see it too. As far as I understood it, Mycroft can also run offline, but has more expandability and already existing features than SVC.
Alternatively Sonos can of course continue developing their own offline solution, however I don’t quite understand the economical factors nowadays. Back then buying and adapting Snips (the predecessor of SVC) was an argument, as Mycroft only got really strong in the recent year, it seems.
However Sonos seemingly not intends to further develop SVC. That’s really sad, as going for more privacy is getting a bigger argument in buying decisions.
https://iotsecuritylab.com/consumers-make-buying-decisions-based-on-privacy/
https://www.ama.org/2017/11/01/how-should-marketers-manage-data-privacy/
However Sonos seemingly not intends to further develop SVC. That’s really sad
I’m not sure where you get this from, but what further features were you looking for that Sonos Voice Control does not already support?
Have you considered putting those features forward as a development suggestion/request, rather than adding another ‘similar’ service.
Just to also add here… The only things I want further from SVC, are the ability to select a different voice (Sorry, Mr Esposito (Fring)
) and to switch off the earcon ‘acknowledgment’ tone. Otherwise SVC seems to be fine for my use-case. I’m sure it was mentioned in the community here that other assistant voices would be made available later-on too?
However Sonos seemingly not intends to further develop SVC. That’s really sad
I’m not sure where you get this from, but what further features were you looking for that Sonos Voice Control does not already support?
Have you considered putting those features forward as a development suggestion/request, rather than adding another ‘similar’ service.
https://support.sonos.com/en-us/article/list-of-voice-requests-for-sonos-voice-control
That’s all it can. Just think of things you ask people/the internet for everyday. One would be rather limited, if requests would be reduced to the aforementioned list.
Examples:
To your second point:
Adding features rather than reinventing the wheel is more often than not the better alternative, yes. Considering this, however, it would be more wise to include the very well featured Mycroft service, rather than catching up to it with the homebrew solution, wouldn’t it? In addition to the already big feature list, community is further improving the service for free!
+I got the feeling, that Sonos does not intend to further expand SVC. I did not find the quote explicitly stating this, however considering that there is support for using SVC together with Alexa/Google it hints in that direction.
Maybe some staff reading this can clarify.
However Sonos seemingly not intends to further develop SVC. That’s really sad
I’m not sure where you get this from, but what further features were you looking for that Sonos Voice Control does not already support?
Have you considered putting those features forward as a development suggestion/request, rather than adding another ‘similar’ service.
https://support.sonos.com/en-us/article/list-of-voice-requests-for-sonos-voice-control
That’s all it can. Just think of things you ask people/the internet for everyday. One would be rather limited, if requests would be reduced to the aforementioned list.
Examples:
To your second point:
Adding features rather than reinventing the wheel is more often than not the better alternative, yes. Considering this, however, it would be more wise to include the very well featured Mycroft service, rather than catching up to it with the homebrew solution, wouldn’t it? In addition to the already big feature list, community is further improving the service for free!
+I got the feeling, that Sonos does not intend to further expand SVC. I did not find the quote explicitly stating this, however considering that there is support for using SVC together with Alexa/Google it hints in that direction.
Maybe some staff reading this can clarify.
SVC is presently not intended as a ‘smart-home’ voice assistant - it’s a voice assistant to ‘exclusively’ control your Sonos speakers/devices - using voice instructions. It’s not there for lights, heating, plugs, skills etc. that’s for Alexa and other services to do those things …and is why they presently operate side-by-side on the speakers to just compliment each other, they are not there to compete, at least not at this moment in time, as far as I’m aware.
If Sonos do continue to expand SVC, then it will still likely have their own device-control at the heart of that development.
More languages for SVC would also be nice….
SVC is presently not intended as a ‘smart-home’ voice assistant - it’s a voice assistant to ‘exclusively’ control your Sonos speakers/devices - using voice instructions. It’s not there for lights, heating, plugs, skills etc. that’s for Alexa and other services to do those things …and is why they presently operate side-by-side on the speakers to just compliment each other, they are not there to compete, at least not at this moment in time, as far as I’m aware.
If Sonos do continue to expand SVC, then it will still likely have their own device-control at the heart of that development.
Exactly.
And this is the reason why I wished the team for adding Mycroft, which also counts to the list you refer to as “others”. Different to Alexa, Google (and SVC) it is a privacy focused, full-featured Voice Assistant. It adds value to the product. (And it’s open source)
Even if the developers probably won’t listen. However, if enough people express the same wish, things gonna change. So here we go:
Sonos team, please add Mycroft!
SVC is presently not intended as a ‘smart-home’ voice assistant - it’s a voice assistant to ‘exclusively’ control your Sonos speakers/devices - using voice instructions. It’s not there for lights, heating, plugs, skills etc. that’s for Alexa and other services to do those things …and is why they presently operate side-by-side on the speakers to just compliment each other, they are not there to compete, at least not at this moment in time, as far as I’m aware.
If Sonos do continue to expand SVC, then it will still likely have their own device-control at the heart of that development.
Exactly.
And this is the reason why I wished the team for adding Mycroft, which also counts to the list you refer to as “others”. Different to Alexa, Google (and SVC) it is a privacy focused, full-featured Voice Assistant. It adds value to the product. (And it’s open source)
Even if the developers probably won’t listen. However, if enough people express the same wish, things gonna change. So here we go:
Sonos team, please add Mycroft!
That’s probably the crux of the matter here, as
I’m not totally dismissing your feature request here, but I do think the demand will certainly need to be there first …and it will need to be proven secure and private, when put in place.
Sonos may not commit resources/money/time to another voice enabling platform when they already have their own service doing the core element of controlling their speakers anyway, that’s at least if they do not have plans to compete in every aspect of smart-home device control.
They are a speaker manufacturer first and foremost and may prefer to concentrate their efforts with that in mind. I guess time will tell. I personally hope they stick to their core business and continue to share services with other partners like Amazon etc; rather than spreading resources too far afield.
I think that a prime motivation for SVC, in addition to privacy concerns, is protection from being dumped by one of the major voice services after some sort of intellectual property spat.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.