"Hello": The Next Evolution of the User Interface

The original Macintosh as seen in 1984

The image above is one of the most famous (and infamous) in the history of computing.  When the Macintosh was unveiled in 1984, it arrived with the promise that we'd be interacting with our technology in newer, friendlier ways.  Steve Jobs even demand that not only must the screen display the word "hello", but the computer had to actually say it.

For a computer that launched a global brand (the Macintosh name can be seen today in the iMac and Macbook lines), the original device was a commercial flop.  Overpriced, underspec'd, and virtually incompatible with existing software, the machine is perhaps best known as Steve Jobs' vision of the future; the failure of which would eventually exile him from his own company.

But if nothing else, the Macintosh did manage to bring one concept to the mainstream.  It may not have been the first computer to use a mouse, but it was the most famous, and arguably the most user friendly.

The importance of this cannot be overstated.  In 1984, you had to be a "nerd" to use a computer.  You had to know the right commands to type in to the ominous black screen of gibberish.  You had to know what it would spit out, and how to manipulate it from there.

The mouse changed that.  Suddenly, manipulating a computer was as simple as pointing and clicking: something we're still doing over thirty years later.

Siri activated

Fast forward to 2007.  Touchscreens had been in existence for decades before we knew what "tablets" and "smartphones" were.  But it was the releases of Apple's iPhone and the Google-driven Droid smartphone lines that brought this once niche technology to everyday consumers.

We've been using that technology steadily for almost a decade, now, and it has only grown more reliable and intuitive.  But the as the novelty of the mobile device market continues to dwindle, consumers and industry leaders are forced to ask the tough question: what's "the next big thing" for tech?

Many would argue it's data: whether it be the storage, access, or distribution of it.  In that respect, Google is well ahead of the curve.

But others have looked to technology on a broader scale.  It's not just about how we access our data, it's how we access our devices.  When will be able to stop pointing and clicking and simply ask for what we want?

Once again, Steve Jobs introduced the "digital personal assistant", Siri in 2011.  Now, we could press a button and speak to our iPhones and iPads to tell it what we want it to do.  It was another revolutionary idea: something born of science fiction and now come to life.

But Apple has not kept the promise it made when it introduced Siri, and competition from Google and even Amazon is getting stiffer by the year.  The lack of app support for Siri means that she is limited by the albeit elaborate number of pre-programmed responses.  It also means you still have to "ask" Siri in the right syntax.  Failing to do so will result in Siri performing a glorified web search and showing you the results rather than simply displaying the exact answer you're looking for.

A perfect example of this is sports.  Up until recently, I could ask Siri, "What was Lou Gehrig's lifetime batting average?"  Rather than show me a statistic, Siri would simply do a web search and direct me to a page where I'd have to scroll down to find the answer.  Only within the past few months has she now been able to pull up Lou Gehrig's career statistics so that I can see within seconds the data I was looking for.

A lot of this has to do with Apple's tight grip on the platform: refusing to open the potential of Siri to third-party developers.  Why is that bad?  Let's use another example.

Let's say I order ink for my printer from Amazon.  Right now, I have to grab my phone and open the Amazon app.  I then have to search for the correct type of ink, add it to my Cart, then Proceed to Checkout.  Amazon makes the checkout process fairly easy, and within a day or two (with my Prime membership), the ink shows up and I'm all set.

Now imagine if Siri had third-party app integration.  Without even touching my iPhone, I could say, "Hey, Siri."  Once I have Siri's attention, I can say, "Re-order another batch of ink from Amazon."  In a perfect world, Siri would be able to recognize that I'm asking her to place an order through Amazon and access the Amazon app data (preferably without actually having to open the app).  It would then recognize that I'm asking her to "re-order" something, which means I've ordered it before.  And since I'm specifying that I'm "re-ordering ink", she can check my order history to see the last batch of ink I ordered, and simply repeat the order for that product.  Once the order is complete, she can come back to me and say, "I have placed your order, Vincent.  Your ink should arrive on Friday, May 20th."

And--lest I sound like an Apple elitist--I'm not suggesting that this be limited to Siri, but Siri is the example I'm most familiar with as I use the Apple ecosystem most commonly.

This may sound like a lot to ask, but it's already being done.  Amazon's Echo is an always-on device that sits in your home and allows you to ask it questions on the fly.  "Alexa, what's the latest headlines?"  She'll read them to you.  "Alexa, play 'Brown Eyed Girl'."  She plays it.  And of course, being that it's an Amzon-based product, you can ask it to re-order things for you.

Google announced today an upgrade to their Google Now service, Google Assistant, which promises to be more conversational in nature than their current system.  Likewise, they've announced their own "Google Home" to compete with Amazon's Echo.

That's all well and good, but there's another virtual assistant on the horizon, and it's destined to change the way we think about our "digital assistants."

Viv demonstration from TechCrunch

"Viv" is an adaptive personal assistant from the creators of Siri capable of handling more abstract queries than what you're probably used to.  In the live demo, creator Dag Kittlaus flexes some of that muscle by asking, "Will it be warmer than 70-degrees near the Golden Gate Bridge after 5 p.m. the day after tomorrow?"

The program is able to parse the question to know a.) we are asking about weather, b.) it needs to locate the Golden Gate Bridge and retrieve the appropriate weather data, and c.) the day after tomorrow is (for example) Friday, May 20th.  The amazing thing is that, rather than needing a batch of pre-programmed responses, Viv is actually creating code on the fly.  The video is truly fascinating.  If you have an extra half hour or so, check it out above.

But Viv's strongest point may not be the dynamic coding or the ability to parse conversational syntax.  The true beauty of Viv is that it is (and according to Kittlaus shall remain) untethered from a proprietary developer (i.e. Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.)

What does that mean?  In short, it means freedom.  It means that if I want Viv to play a song, I'm not limited to the Apple Music or Google Play databases.  Opening Viv to third-party developers means I can hail a cab, order flowers, book a hotel room, or send money to a friend--all without having to open individual apps.  Viv can do all of this within its own interface thanks to third-party support, and all in a matter of seconds.

It's likely Apple will be looking into creating an in-home speaker like the Echo or the Home, but if we're being realistic, the last thing we need is another device to plug in.  All the devices we need are the ones we carry with us every day: the smartphone, the tablet, the laptop.

More likely is the idea that Apple and Google will take this thought and move it forward into their own systems, and Viv will be a catalyst for evolution instead of the standard-bearer.  If nothing else, it may help make Siri and Google Assistant smarter.

In any case, it's clear that the next evolution of interaction isn't pointing or clicking, swiping or tapping: it's as simple as saying "hello."