Strava

Tweets:

I was looking through some old Twitter bookmarks and found this interesting thread on the running app Strava.

Note: Strava have apparently drastically improved their privacy options and default settings since this discussion. There are options to hide your home and work place using a buffer zone where it won’t track you.

“Out running this morning on a new route and a lady runs past me. Despite only passing, when I get home Strava automatically tags her in my run. If I click on her face it shows her full name, picture and a map of her running route (which effectively shows where she lives). This is despite the fact that I don’t follow her and she doesn’t share her activity publicly. So basically if someone sees a woman running alone there’s an app they can go to see her name, picture and address”

Andrew Seward

Other people pointed out that all visibility settings default to “Everyone” and this feature was called “Flyby” but was not clear that people will be able to see your running route and similar.

Discussion:

When a feature is designed by someone without bad intentions, an idea can sound great on paper but with more thought, can potentially have negative implications. In this case, the feature sounds like a great social aspect, and maybe runners can learn better running routes and compete for the best times. However, it can be used for nefarious purposes: 

  • A stalker can learn where you will be and at what time, and can even determine where the most secluded area will be. 
  • A thief will know when your house could be vacated and how long for.

This doesn’t just apply to running apps, and caution should be used when using all apps. The classic example is not posting on social media about how excited you are for your holiday, and instead: posting about it when you come back. Exposing when you will leave your house is useful for burglars.

Of course, features could have more nefarious purposes. People often accuse Google of collecting data to use for its primary business which basically makes money off your data with its advertising business. These features can often be framed for your own benefit with claims of “personalised experience”.

Often features can be enabled by default which takes advantage of people’s laziness to read the options and turn them off. However, even if you do check the settings, you might not understand what the feature actually is, just like people didn’t fully understand Strava’s  “Flyby” feature.

Humane AI & Rabbit R1: What Are These Companies Hiding?

What Are These Companies Hiding?

Dave2D made a video covering two AI Assistant devices; The two products Rabbit R1 and Humane AI pin are launching very soon. He was suspicious because he is unaware of anyone getting a review copy to promote them, and the existing marketing materials have been a bit vague or suspiciously misleading.

It reminds me of when there was some controversy over a computer game that wasn’t reviewed before release – which caused suspicion that it was going to be released in a broken state; because if the company really believed in it, they would send it for review to be praised. Restricting reviews seem an admission that the product isn’t good, or as what it seems.

The examples they have shown is that you can use voice commands just like an Alexa, and can book trips, bring up nutritional information for food by recognising what it is, live translations. You don’t need your phone or to launch any apps.

The Rabbit R1 is the more popular of the two (100,000 units on preorder) and is $200 device, featuring a cute design, small screen, camera, analog scroll wheel, speaker and button; very simple. The Humane AI pin is a $700 device and it also needs a $25 monthly subscription. Instead of using a screen, it projects the image. So you clip it to your clothes and hold your hand out to view. It’s a neat party trick, maybe a little gimmicky. 

In the marketing, both companies deflect any questions using AI buzzwords and using very specific examples. It seems it might be the case that they just do a subset of what your phone can do, but worse. 

Personally, I didn’t understand what most wearable tech did like the Apple Watch. In that example, it seemed to be sold on the idea that you no longer had to take your phone out of your pocket to check a message, but it seems a simple value proposition for a device that costs hundreds.

A mobile phone is more versatile and often more personal because it’s easier to hide the screen. Whereas, if a device relies purely on voice, then people can overhear, it causes a scene, and maybe could be hard to hear in a busy environment. The projection idea might even be difficult to see in different lighting, although might be easier to hide from other’s view, although you look a bit weird. 

Since these devices can’t do everything your phone can do, you still need your phone with you. Certain devices like an mp3 player became obsolete when smartphones were widely adopted because people didn’t want to charge and carry two devices around… Or most people anyway; I don’t like the idea that listening to music is draining my battery that I might need to use for phone calls and text messages. I listen to a lot of music so I like to keep the devices separate.

So back to these two AI devices: A good question is “why isn’t this just an app?” Google already has a Google Assistant that you can talk to, although I have never tried that out. With how AI has progressed, the likes of Bing gives you easy access to quick searches, summaries, image generation etc, so it sounds like most of it could just be an additional app to download, or would be quickly obsolete if Google just adds the feature natively to Android. The possible limiting feature that Dave mentioned is that with all the permission needed to work, it might be seen as a security risk for Android to grant permissions to your location, images, contacts, microphone, camera, passwords etc. If it’s the company’s own device, then they can access all features of such a device.

When you are on your phone, you have the flexibility to react on-screen and look at images, reviews and follow links in order to make a decision. Having something that’s basically fully voice controlled has less flexibility. You are kind of forced down a specific path.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the marketing materials have often shortened the sequences to make it seem more impressive than it is. Wait time is a massive factor in the user experience. If there’s too much delay, then the usefulness and appeal is reduced.

The size and weight of devices can be a problem. If you are expected to pin the Humane AI device to your clothes, then it needs to be light without tugging on your clothes. 

If these devices are using their own AI models, then another question is “how good are they?”. What is their training data, and are the initial versions going to be poor, but get better over time when learning from the early adopters?

Personally, I could see this being like the Google Glass where it sounds like a cool idea, but then it’s actually a bit limited, overpriced, and you look silly using it.

Shoes 2

It’s hard to believe this is my second blog on the topic of shoes – when this is a software development blog.

I recently discovered the BBC Archive channel which shows clips from back in the day. This one is from 1987 for “Smart Trainers”.

It’s interesting how they were trying to make products like this 35 years ago. I don’t think it’s very practical for outside use though, I wouldn’t trust it in water. It’s probably just designed for gym use only.

It’s funny how he doesn’t successfully demo it. I did wonder if it was just taking a long time to load and he didn’t have time, or if the program had legitimately frozen. Either way, the product didn’t seem very appealing. Wearable tech such as wristbands seem much more practical than Smart Trainers.

For Star Wars fans, I also liked this interview with Carrie Fisher and Mark Hammill