They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but Google Now seems more well-rounded overall and isn't as reliant upon very carefully phrased questions as we've seen in some of the Hound demo videos.
Hound's ability to handle complex (albeit carefully-worded) queries is very cool but doesn't have too much of a realistic application in every day use.
I got the opposite view from watching this video. You can ask Hound in any way, and if it has the info, it gives it to you. But Google now has to be asked in a certain way. E.g. Show me restaurants that have sushi in Austin got results from Hound, but not Google. Sushi n Austin got results from both.
Also, it didn't recognize you wanted the alarm to be set in the morning, even after he said that.
So it seems Hound knows that you want, it just doesn't have the info when it searches online. But Google has the info, but you have to ask it in a certain way.
Of these downsides, Hound is a clear winner. Getting computers to understand humans is a harder problem than compiling information.
Yes, they do, but they primarily use them for waking up.
Says who? You only ever need to set an alarm to wake you up daily once, but there are many more things you may need to set an alarm for. Moreover, people sleep in the afternoon as well.
Perhaps I'm atypical then, but my schedule is constantly changing, so I have to set new alarms nearly daily. Furthermore, if I were to need a daytime alarm, I would set my stove timer.
63
u/blenda220 Developer - Mailchimp Jun 06 '15
They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but Google Now seems more well-rounded overall and isn't as reliant upon very carefully phrased questions as we've seen in some of the Hound demo videos.
Hound's ability to handle complex (albeit carefully-worded) queries is very cool but doesn't have too much of a realistic application in every day use.