The foe between Alexa and Google Assistant is fierce. How fierce? Cover all of Las Vegas in Google Assistant ads for CES fierce? Put voice assistance in uncanny things like a light switch or a fridge fierce? How about “don’t dare utter a competitor’s name in your voice app” fierce?
Yep, Amazon has criminialized Alexa app developers from observant “Google” in their Alexa skills, it seems. [Updated with Amazon response. See below.]
One Alexa developer incidentally detected this by submitting a voice app to Amazon with a bug.
Jo Jaquinta’s Alexa diversion skill Mind Maze was ostensible to remind users on exit how to relaunch a ability in a future, by observant something along a lines of: “to play again, contend ‘Alexa open Mind Maze.’”
When Amazon’s examination testers took a demeanour during a skill, however, it returned a response he had built for a Google Home movement of a app instead. Whoops!
According to a reviewer, a ability had said: “If we suffer label games, we can contend ‘OK Google, speak to 21 Blackjack’…”
The ability was afterwards soon deserted since we can’t contend “Google” in an Alexa app, we see.
Specifically, a reason Amazon supposing is that an Alexa ability “should not foster Google Home.”
Wrote a reviewer:
Actual result: The ability promotes google home by observant ‘OK Google’ when user utters Stop or Cancel.
Expected result: The ability should not foster Google Home.
Of course, not promulgation Alexa ability users to a competing product creates clarity for Amazon, and a bug positively would have combined a treacherous knowledge for users had it left live.
However, it’s rather revelation that Amazon’s rejecting was not since a ability was charity a incorrect exit phrase, since it would have led to user confusion, or since it disregarded some arrange of developer guidelines. (Nowhere does a Alexa Skills developer agreement prohibit “promoting” a competition, after all.)
It was criminialized for reminding Alexa users about Google Home. And that’s only not allowed.
Update: Amazon says a denunciation a Amazon reviewer used was incorrect.
“We reviewed a ability and dynamic that a improper word could lead to patron difficulty and did not accurately execute a ability functionality. The acceptance representative’s response was an error,” a orator said. “We do not anathema a use of code names, nonetheless we do essay to safeguard that trademarks, egghead property, or code names are used properly.”