Would you pay more for a new and AI-powered version of Alexa?
That’s the big question hovering around Amazon’s ambitious plans for a revamped Alexa with an Amazon-made LLM under the hood, and a new report details how much we might have to cough up.
According to Reuters, Amazon execs are mulling two tiers for the new AI-powered Alexa: one that’s free, and another that’s capable of handling “more complicated queries” for “at least” $5 a month, or even “roughly” $10 a month. (And don’t count on any Prime discounts, Reuters says.)
Amazon is targeting August for the rollout of what they’re branding as “Remarkable Alexa,” while internal chatter has it that 2024 is a “must-win” year for its embattled Alexa division, according to Reuters.
We’ve reached out to Amazon for comment.
Since the unveiling last fall of a revamped and chattier Alexa powered by a new LLM like those used by ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, we’ve heard that Amazon’s Alexa plans are facing strong headwinds, with the enhanced Alexa said (according to a Business Insider report) to be prone to hallucinations and long-winded answers that were “falling short of expectations.”
Making matters even trickier, a Forbes report from earlier this month highlighted the difficulties inherent in an LLM-powered version of Alexa reliably handling smart home commands, a core function of the “classic” Alexa.
Meanwhile, a promised public preview of the new AI-powered Alexa has thus far failed to materialize.
Shortly after Amazon’s demo of an AI-enhanced Alexa last fall, outgoing Amazon hardware chief Dave Limp argued that Amazon “absolutely” could charge extra for a “remarkable” new version of Alexa.
But would users actually want to pay more for Alexa, even one with LLM-powered smarts that could hold open-ended conversations, compose emails, and place Uber Eats orders, all without having to say “Alexa” over and over?
Amazon clearly hopes so, but if the new Alexa turns out to be a long-winded beta that makes things up and struggles to control your smart lights, the answer might be a big “no.”
